From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com>
Subject: chu capote
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 20:46:59 -0800



----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: Liberal vs. social democracy - Gestell/Gewinnst


> Michael Eldred wrote:
>
> >One can look at the phenomenon Wal-Mart and see in it an example of
Gestell
> >(e.g. its well set-up supply chain) and Gewinnst (its ways of generating
> >profits
> >through pricing pressure on suppliers, etc.) by showing in each case
> >concretely
> >in what way it is such an exemplification. That is 'criticism' in the
sense
> >of
> >_krinein_, i.e. differentiating. Such a criticism is
> >revealing/unconcealing. It
> >throws light on what Wal-Mart is as an entity within a given historical
> >constellation of being.
>
> Yes but wouldn't that kind of criticism then apply to every entity in the
> world, since every entity must somehow exemplify the historical
> constellation of being in which it is? If so, then wouldn't the focus on
> Wal-Mart (and other corporate entities) be due to a conflation of how
> something is factically well set up (which is specific to entities like
> Wal-Mart) with how everything is pre-understood in terms of the Setup
(which
> is not specific to entities like Wal-Mart)? It seems like exactly the same
> problem as with the association of das Man with the UN that occurred
earlier
> here - the conflation of a factical group representing public opinion with
> how that group (along with everything else in the world) is pre-understood
> as Public (as mitdasein) in the first place. It just all seems like the
same
> kind of ontic/ontological conflation over and over again.
>
> By the way, do you know whether the expression "The Man" in English (used
> with reference to large corporations with anti-corporate connotations)
> originated with Heidegger's das Man? Or is it older? I'm asking because my
> girlfriend always calls Starbucks "The Man" in that derogatory way, and it
> makes my skin crawl everytime she does it. One of the few remaining
vestiges
> of her anti-corporate youth. So I was thinking that if I could tell her
that
> the expression originated with Heidegger, she might stop saying it, since
> she always associates Heidegger with Nazis.

if she is an african american she would be saying 'u be dah man' not 'the
man', i think 'the man' is a white expression when you have to or want to
say something else, or maybe 'u are the man'. whites say 'hey mun'. when u
gets called up by da man, then u have to work a late shift, or a sunday when
u want to be in church, no.

i wonder what in joual what the expression is? Vous ete L'homme.

johnF

Canadian French (Joual) (Qubeckish?) variants of "I am crazy"
Chu capoté, moé là!
Comment:
1)Prounounsment: "shuu kah-puh-TAY mway law". (To pronounce "chu" say "shee"
but with your lips rounded like saying "oo"... :) In Québec French, the "u"
is whispered or even not pronounced at all when it's near certain vowels <g.
2) "chu capoté" could be interpreted many ways (such as "I'm cool")
je suis capotÉ
Comment: 'I feel crazy'
chu fou (m.)
chu folle (f.)
Comment: a growing number of people pronounce the "u" in "chu"..
Thanks to François Manon Michel.



>
> > > AC:
> > > if the casting of being is not up to us, understanding is not up to
us,
> >and
> > > mood is not up to us, then how can anyone criticize entities like
> >Wal-Mart
> > > or George Bush for "promoting" or "participating" in what they never
> >chose
> > > and in principle could never have chosen in the first place? Wouldn't
> >that
> > > constitute an equivocation between factical orderings (which can be
> >chosen,
> > > and so for which we can be criticized) and ontological Ordering
> >(gestell)?
> >
> >Yes. A Wal-Mart or a George W. Bush can only be at most an example in any
> >philosophical question at issue. They are only ever factical entities. It
> >is
> >only their ontological structure that can be made questionable and thus
> >investigated by philosophical questioning. But then they are merely
> >'specimens'.
> >
> >Marx makes a similar point in Das Kapital. His intention, he says, is not
> >to
> >criticize any specific capitalist personally or any specific capitalist
> >enterprise, but rather the capitalist social relations for which they are
> >merely
> >"character masks". Pace Marx's famous Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach, the
> >criticism of capitalist social relations remains a philosophical,
> >ontological
> >task. The step from ontological questioning and criticism to ontic
> >rejection and
> >opposition is mostly a misunderstanding because philosophical questioning
> >(and
> >artistic creation) prises open an historical space of _possibility_; it
> >does not
> >point to "what has to be done" (Lenin) _necessarily_.
>
> Do you think Heidegger and Marx themselves ever crossed that line?
> Anthony Crifasi
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Take advantage of our best MSN Dial-up offer of the year - six months
> -AT-$9.95/month. Sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
>
>
>
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---