From: "bob scheetz" <rscheetz-AT-cboss.com>
Subject: Re: gestell etiology 
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:13:31 -0500



rene writes:
>     That belongs to the silence kept by him, that i mentioned recently.
>     He held the war in silence, till he saw chances to make it
'productive'.
>     They came for him with trench-man Hitler, no doubt, at a time when
>     also an internal revolution had taken place, that had everything to
>     do with those ancient texts. They began to belong to the factical
>     situation.

but ari is the least visionary of thinkers, almsot the genre antithesis,
...quintessentially subjectivist,
...instrumental rationalist, ....   if he got re-incarnated in the reich,
the least likely would have to be heid, no?
he'd have been a hard-headed nazi scientist type, ...like our own tribe
diligently doing smart bomb science for
the avaricious and bloody delirium of our wolfowitz/cheney lider.

> >Not the Stagirite, who could not even stack up to Gaugamela.
> >But the Aristotle who merely lived and died, and who still *is*, in
> >that strange sense of being, which is still waiting to be thought, and
> >which also encompasses the factical historical situation. It's not
> >obvious, but it is necessary.
> >Which appears as well from the perception that it might not be
> >fortuitious that the great war took place when metaphysics had ended, the
> >discipline, shaped along Aristotle's lines.
>
> I've never understood how heideggerians can keep this up about the
> nietzsche/heid claim for the end of metafisics when just about everyone
that
> i know since Kant emphatically prefaced their discourse with precisely
this
> stipulation, for the death of god and metafisics.
>
>    Bravo, that's precisely what he treats in my GA: that in Kant, for the
first
>    time since Aristoteles, metaphysics becomes a *problem*, but that not
only
>    Kant can't find back to the origin, but that next, the absolute
idealists
>    cover the whole idea of metaphysics - the basic splits/Spaltungen going
back to
>    radical finitude of Dasein. Which is NOT the same as human finitude - ,
by
>    bringing metaphysics to science, Wissenschaft, the collection of
knowledge -
>    system, encyclopedy.

i'm not clear on your meaning here.
in my humble schema hegel overcomes subjectivist thinking with the
dialectic, supplanting metafisics with phenomenology,  discovering
giest/absolute, and its effects, bildung, kultur, etc, etc, for the ground
of meaning, ... (all which it looks a lot like heid ripped off big time).
but the wissenschaft (the human sciences) tribe are kantian, no? and
husserlian phenomenology a misnomer that really belongs, transcendental
subjective idealism, here?

>    He already knew Nietzsche  - how could he not? - but also kept silent
here,
>    did not want to join in the vitalistic and nihilistic choir. But
lectured
>    Nietzsche only from 1936, when the end of metaphysics was connected
with the
>    beginning of sthing else. Only this procured the opportunity, despite
the
>    word 'completion',  NOT to throw away metaphysics, but to read it
differently,
>    not metaphysically, but 'from Being'. This is not or seldom to be found
in
>    Heideggerians. I tried to suggest it, when i replaced Aristoteles the
Stagirite
>    by physis.


> and after all why is not dasein metafisical? Aristotle's sense is
> naturalistic; and "metaphysics" got defined by him fortuitously as the
> science of everything else, everything transcendental.
>
>    In the same GA he treats the embarrassment that metaphysics is
historically:
>    what comes after the physical. A meta cannot be found in Aristotle, but
it's
>    the reconstructional efforts to bring A's scattered lectures to a
unity, that
>    assume the name metaphysics. But this unity, as the unity of the
'manifold-said
>    being', WAS NOT A'S concern, but for instance Thomas' (analogia entis)
>    Then the never asked question can rise: why isn't A asking for it?
(probably
>    because he still has it in it's back: physis)
>
>    Is not Dasein itself metaphysical - that's precisely what he's
mainataining
>    after BT. Not ontology, but metaphysics as a happening in (the depths
of)
>    factical Dasein. Dasein, and not Mensch, because it regards not the
entity Mensch,
>    that is endlessly objectified by psychology, sociology etc., but him as
the place,
>    where things *appear*, always already, amidst and driven by what is.
What does that
>    mean for him, that he has basically to consider that, and not what he
wills himself.

you mean an imminentist metafisic?  no origen and no heaven? just the
meaning of being within the span of finitude like lucretius?  or
eckart/dionysus, minus old god?  but even if that works for supermen, what
about us little ones? ..."what's my destiny, mama?" (f gump) ...and anyway
isn't the destiny of physis, darwin? and isn't that precisely the toxic
(nihilist) ether, bourgeois liberal culture, in which our own dasein swims.
and finally isn't the metafisical question irrepressible? is there really
any way around it, finding the hidden god?

....
>       Yeh, we have to deepen cynism too, it seems. Today i got
>       a renewed offer to join the Cioran list...
>       I'm with you and Malcolm: not monodic Gregorian, but the manyvoiced
>       Dionysic choir of those who don't lie down on the couches, and who
>       don't let their urge to dance and enjoy be unburdened and rerouted
>       into dreams and their interpretations.

that's certainly good to hear (for me that is), ...anyway it looks like the
old "select few," for all the licking and stroking is rapidly dwindling to a
minority of one

 ....
> winter ith acommin in.
> damn you!
> sing goddam!
> ...
> comradely,
> bob
>
>        Stark machet die Nacht und die Not...  (Hoelderlin, Brod und Wein)
>
>    companionate greetings,
>    rene

and even mistakes can help
thanks,
bob




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