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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005