File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0312, message 187


From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com>
Subject: Re: Liberal vs. social democracy - Gestell/Gewinnst
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:02:00 -0800



----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Liberal vs. social democracy - Gestell/Gewinnst


> John Foster wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> "This means that Dasein as such is guilty, if our formally existential
> definition of 'guilt' as 'Being-the-basis of a nullity' is indeed
correct."
> (SuZ 185)

This is an hypothetical statement comparing a privation, a lack, as Care, to
what is lacked. For instance,

"Not only can entities whose Being is care load themselves with factical
guilt, but they are guilty in the very basis of their Being; and this
Being-guilty is what provides, above all, the ontological condition for
Dasein's ability to come to owe anything in factically existing....Being
guilty remains proximally...undisclosed...reveals only the aforesaid
nullity."

Heidegger is suggesting that "Being-guilty is more primordial than any
*knowledge* of it. Thus an existential interpretation of Dasein as such
being guilty cannot be. Rather Dasein, in being thrown into existent, is the
basis of a nullity, not a lack, nor a privation, but rather a
'nullification' of what is. Thus guilt, existentially, can both be felt,
factically, as either a deprivation and an illegal possesion.

The arguement can only hold to be valid as long as there is anxiety in the
presence of Care. Care, as active concern, is activated by Dasein being
confronted with the possibility in death. Falling and throwness cannot be
escaped, but wanting to have a conscience can at least direct and lead
Dasein toward what is possible regarding morality, in a factical sense. What
may be correctly stated is that Dasein cannot dispossess itself of it's
throwness, nor fallen nature.

Therefore...["the formal existential idea of the 'Guilty!' as
"Being-the-basis for a Being which has been defined by a 'not'" - that is to
say, as "Being-the-basis of a nullity."

This nullity "excludes relatedness to anything present-at-hand or generally
which is not it itself, or which is not in the way Dasin is - namely,
existing' so any possibility that, with regard to Being-the-basis for a
lack, the entity is itself such a basis might be reckoned up as 'lacking in
some manner', is a possibility which drops out."

What Dasein can know is that it cannot escape being thrown: enculturation,
sociation, and what it is in a community sense, or fallen (into facticity).

Then it can be said that being guilty is felt as a 'lack value', and makes
being 'indebted' possible. In doing this Dasein can chose itself, since it
is then enthralled to it's 'ownmost' possibility...." What Dasein chooses
"is having-a-conscience as Being-free for one's ownmost Being guilty.
"Understanding the appeal' means 'wanting to have a conscience." [ZuS, pages
280-288]

The witness is the 'attestation' of the call of Dasein itself in a "face to
face" encounter "with it's ownmost  potentiality-for-Being." Those moral
approbations later we term 'living the good life' are found in that
encounter with authenticity within 'being-in-the-world.' If this encounter
is 'face to face' then it is a person to person encounter



> >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.
>
> Fundamental ontology has nothing to do with identifying a "reason" for
> something.

USBAd [US Bush Administration]

The Bush administration is not acting 'irrationally' if it is disclosed by
the administration that it is acting in good faith with the people of Iraq.
It has failed to do that, and in one instance, Paul Bremer, has indicated
that the US Bush Administration acted 'illegally' by attacking Iraq. The bet
is still on as to whether the intentions of the US Bush Administration are
in the best interests of the Iraqi's. The evidence now is that this is
implausible.

It is also interesting to note that Afghanistan is also a nation which the
US Bush Administration  claims is acting in the best interests for. A good
question then can be asked about why the US Bush Administration is not
acting in the best interets of citizens everywhere, especially with respect
to Iran's and North Korea's obvious nuclear weapons procurement program. The
US Bush Administration cannot publically declare that it is not acting in
the best interests of Iraq, nor of Afghanistan, because it has another
reason for acting 'illegally' in Iraq in particularly, which is to obtain
control and ultimate ownership of the oil generated profits and savings. The
perverse irony is that although the US led coalition is maintaining
publically that it is acting in the best interests of the Iraqi's, there are
scorese of innocent civilians being killed each day by the US, and possibly
it's coalition allies. So cumulatively the US is engaging in acts which over
time will exceed what is termed the use of 'necessary force' and will thus
be entirely distrusted in the Middle East. While the US Bush and UK Blair
Adminstration [UKBAd] claim they are acting in the best interests of Iraqis,
it is uncertain whether the goal of liberating Iraqis will ever be achieved.
Over 70% of Iraqis are currently unemployed, and wages, unions, and other
democratic rights are being taken away, rather than restored.

The descriptive ontology regarding the mission of the US in Iraq, although
it includes reconstruction, appears to be motivated in part by acts of
conscience, this seems to be 'tentative' or 'plausible' given what has
transpired thus far. Moral sentiments and qualities are features of a
descriptive ontology, and in this political, economic situation, it is not
total clear what the 'best interests' really are.....It is trite to simply
state that this 'occupation' is over oil, and not so trite to state that it
is about 'safety and security' of the Iraq people. It looks more and more
like a clearcut case of theft of property, national property.

chao

JohnF


>
> >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.
>
> Well, hasn't Rene painted Taiwan in the traitor role?
>
> >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.
>
> If ontological Thinking were the kind of thing that specifically
"supported"
> one form of government instead of another, you would be right.
>
> Anthony Crifasi
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't worry if your Inbox will max out while you are enjoying the
holidays.
> Get MSN Extra Storage!  http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
>
>
>
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005