File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0312, message 152


From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Liberal vs. social democracy - Gestell/Gewinnst
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:03:47 +0000


Rene de Bakker wrote:

>A "who" is also pre-understood in a way that is not up to us, yes?
>
>
>     But then who or what is addressed when all playfulness between people
>     seems to vanish, when their intercourse is embedded in technology, not
>     only the actual things, but the whole set-up, wherein the roles are 
>just
>     to be filled in.  Who or what in us is still touched, terrified by 
>this     structuredness, that is inescapable on a global level now - so 
>that     complete helplessness is exhibited in the face of anthrax and 
>snipers?     In this situation, techno/info stuff is much nearer to us than 
>the fields
>     of our own village, than the sky over the land (H in Discourse on 
>thinking).
>     This regards everyone, and, contrary to our intelligentsia, Heidegger 
>says
>     all, as humans, are able to respond to the claim of technology, beyond
>     being addicted to it. The way everything and -one is understood is 
>most
>     certainly up to us.

"Response" in the ontological sense ("Being-responsible") does not mean that 
our pre-understanding is "up to us" such that we can be criticized in the 
way that George Bush and Wal-Mart have been criticized here. There can be a 
philosophically critique in the sense of unfolding ontological structure, 
but that applies to everyone without exception, since Dasein as always 
thrown is essentially Being-guilty. So the focus on Bush and Wal-Mart would 
imply a conflation of factical responsibility (which is specific to some) 
with ontological responsibility (which applies to Dasein as such).

> >    But also the house is not merely an object, because it is the house
> >    he lives in, and which can only give meaning to all that is gathered
> >    in and around there in order to live.
>
>But all of these are still pre-understood in a way that is not up to us.
>
>     But here too: what is addressed when a house is a living-machine and   
>   man the machinist? Is that living, wohnen?

Maybe not, but that pre-understanding is still not in our power.

> >It's hard for me to see where the freedom is here in
> >an ontological sense (I assume you aren't referring to ordinary everyday
> >ontic notions of freedom and indetermination).
>
> >    Yes, for you that must be hard to see. Freedom now is not the luxury
> >    of choosing, but the engagement with what is more than oneself, a
> >    possibly freeing bond. The *width* of Dasein is decisive for what
> >    things are. There are now no limits set for moving outside, 
>ek-sisting,
> >    so it seems (to me).
>
>Perhaps, but if that is not up to us, then how can anyone be criticized for 
>this, whether George Bush or the UN or government or Wal-Mart?
>
>    That's the question: if what happens is basically not within our power,
>    does that mean that it is not up to us? If you're still Dasein, you
>    should respond.

Since "responsibility" in the ontological sense refers to Being-guilty in 
the ontological sense, which is not the kind of thing we can change (since 
Dasein as such is Being-guilty), then to focus such a criticism on Bush or 
Wal-Mart is to conflate factical responsibility with ontological 
responsibility.

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Winterize your home with tips from MSN House & Home. 
http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005