From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com> Subject: Re: Liberal vs. social democracy - Gestell/Gewinnst Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:06:13 -0800 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl> To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 6:43 AM Subject: RE: Liberal vs. social democracy - Gestell/Gewinnst > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU > [mailto:owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]Namens Anthony > Crifasi > Verzonden: dinsdag 9 december 2003 20:04 > Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU > Onderwerp: RE: Liberal vs. social democracy - Gestell/Gewinnst > > > > 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 Being guilty means for Heidegger, wanting to have a conscience. Other wise there would be no quilt, and there would be a conscience in it's place. Dasein as such is not 'being-guilty', rather 'potentiality for being in the world' is a prerequisite for conscience. Conscience is not the 'law giver, rather conscience is the 'witness'. Ontological for Heidegger phenomenally is that 'which motivates' and what is situated closest is what is not ontological. Formal ontology is the 'study of objects and their connections' which is separate from a descriptive ontology. Ontology in my opinion therefore reserves, for use, those terms which are the most universal. Thus a universal history of the world, places a claim on Dasein, not the other way around. In an important sense, a criticism of the Bush administration's acts can be ontological. The Bush administration is may be criticized because it appears 'irrational' and since there 'is nothing without reason', there has to be a reason underlying it's general policy intentions. It appears that the Bush adminstration is 'lying' to maintain or gain support, but in doing so, specifically it acts against it's stated purpose which is to fight terrorism (eg. 6 Iraqi children were killed yesterday by US soldiers). The Bush administration can be fairly criticized for not even having a conscience, unless it can be stated that a conscience is obeying an 'inner grandeur' of 'higher principle'. The higher principle is not alligned with 'the will to life' but the 'will to will', and excludes life, because of it's popular delusion that it is a super power, and can take that which it desires to ensure that the super power flourishes. The Bush administration is not only 'proto-fascist' in the sense that it's policies are motivated by a group of like minded individuals, it also enforces complicance in a general realm of belief in that everything from environmental, social, economic and other policies are mandated as if they are 'deific'. That is the Bush administration is acting on beliefs which is espouses as not subject to a reasonable basis, but acts as though it has a privileged 'transmission' from on high. Bush is the spokesperson for a 'deific' commandment as though to hide and conceal the truth since it is exercising it's authority to take because there are few who can currently challenge it's taking. For instance, yesterday George Bush stated that the US would not recognize a positive referendum of national independence of Tawain. The Republics are actually siding with the stated policy of China which does not recognize the independence of Tawain and China is not a democracy whereas Tawain is a democracy. Very interesting, a nation ruled by Republicans, who rarely have been very friendly with Communists in China, are supporting an a dictatorship, or authoritarian regime which transgresses human rights. Interesting, and the ontological discussion is clear regarding what is called thinking. If the Bush administration were thinking, it would recognize that Tawain is a democracy unlike China, and support the independence of Tawain if the general consensus in the referendum was supportive of independence. JohnF > > > > You're, all alone, making your own distinctions, for your own purposes. > Heidegger writes, that one-sidedness and Eigensinn/self-will are, probably > parented, mighty ennemies, hidden in Technik. They keep us away from > other possibilities, other sides and senses, that are also hinted in > words. - 'Being' is such an essentially mehr-deutig, pluri-valent, word. > (pluri-valent is not poly-interpretable!!!) > 'Being' indicates both beings and their being, so that, in metaphysics, > the subject can be: the being of beings. Now this has become problematic. > > When, next to Wal-mart and Bush, also Anthony Crifasi is 'criticized', then > please do not take that personnally: we don't say that you should be removed > or destroyed, you may all go on. We just take the liberty, as long as we have it, > to say what we see. And that is in all: the un-will to accept what is not > self-evident, or reducible to self-evidence. The way the three do it, reminds > of Descartes, any pomo can see that. What a pomo can not see is that Descartes > came first and the unlimited reign of one-sided thinking 300 years later. > Or to say: you have a mandate. And it is part of that mandate not to ask for > it. Is a better guarded Bodenlosigkeit thinkable? > > Have you read Kafka? There is already some Kafka in Descartes... > > best > rene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005