File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0312, message 94


Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 22:30:03 +0100
From: artefact-AT-t-online.de (Michael Eldred)
Subject: Re: Liberal vs. social democracy - Gestell/Gewinnst


Cologne 05-Dec-2003

Anthony Crifasi schrieb  Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:59:13 +0000:

> Michael Eldred wrote:
>
> >I come back to Heidegger's insight: the danger confronting humankind
> >historically is
> >quite independent of the misery or otherwise on the planet. Maybe the
> >European idea
> >of social democratic, secured happiness will spread across the globe (what
> >a nightmare!). The danger is that we as human beings conceive of ourselves
> >more and
> >more solely within the parameters staked out by Gestell and Gewinnst. Human
> >being
> >itself comes to be thought technologically. We are losing the capacity to
> >reopen the question, Who are we as human beings?
> AC:
> Can anyone or anything (or group of things) be criticized for this in the
> way that Henry is doing with Wal-Mart? Specifically, can a factical entity
> be criticized for promoting technological thinking in some factical way
> (whether corporate marketing, government organization, etc.)? Is it even
> possible for a factical entity to do this, if technological thinking or
> gestell does not mean factical thinking (which COULD be factically
> "promoted" by some entity), but how everything is supposed to have already
> been understood ontologically?

I think that the responsibility for learning to think lies individually with
each of us. If we're lucky (i.e. depending on how we are cast into our
individual situations), we may have been encouraged and pointed in the 'right'
direction by teachers, etc. Thinking requires Erfahrung (experience) which is
originally "bei praktischer Arbeit od. durch Wiederholen einer Sache gewonnene
Kenntnis" ("knowledge gained in practical work or by repeatedly practising
something"). Thinking is learned through practising, much like one learns to
play a musical instrument.

> > > >ME:
> > > > Yes, I do think the "planet" is in serious trouble but as a world. And
> > > > I agree that
> > > > "scientific-technological thoughtlessness " is part of the crisis. A
> > > > new way of
> > > > thinking would not be "scientific-technological thoughtfulness" but a
> > > > thinking that
> > > > is cast altogether differently and has the various folds of being in
> > > > its purview.
> > > > That's why I am interested in trying to think through other simple
> > > > phenomena outside the paradigm of Her-Stellen.
> > > HS:
> > > I am not sure that the multiplication is necessary, or even valid. The
> > > strife within Gestell, according to my understanding where I
> >assert/insert
> > > turbulence and empty protest, holds the space within Gestell.
> >ME:
> >Isn't such opposition then held captive within the mode of thinking we call
> >Gestell?
> >Don't we have to step back to see a genuine alternative?
> AC:
> I guess I have a similar question about this. Can someone be criticized for
> not stepping back? Wouldn't such a criticism presuppose some freedom over
> how we already understand things ontologically, which is precisely what we
> do not choose in any instance?

No, I don't think that anyone can be criticized for not entering the realm of
philosophical questioning. Those who can understand what this "stepping back"
means remain a miniscule minority. One can only be grateful that this kind of
questioning thinking does not die out altogether.

> >With regard specifically to human being, Aristotle casts the human
> >principle/starting-point of movement to be the _psychae_ under the guidance
> >of its
> >_logos_-part. As human beings we have a principle or starting-point
> >(_archae_)
> >within ourselves that initiates, governs and guides our movements of living
> >(_bios_,
> >not merely _zaen_) under the fore-sight of _logos_ which has always already
> >gathered beings as such into the defined stand of understanding.
> >
> >Our movements of living are free only because we have within ourselves a
> >starting-point (_archae_) governing our movements of living under the
> >guidance
> >of our insight into the world, i.e. our understanding of being. Our striving
> >(_orexis_,
> >appetite, will), too, is under the guidance of our understanding of being.
> >As having
> >such an _archae_ of insight into being, human being can be said to be
> >'self-governing' and its movements of life are free.
> AC:
> But if that very insight into being is itself already ontologically
> understood in a way not of our choosing, over which we have no "governance,"
> then in what sense is that a basis for freedom? Even if we are open to
> various insights into being, how is this "self-governing" freedom, since we
> do not govern how even that insight has already been ontologically
> understood?

Agreed. We have freedom only within the realm (world-opening) cast by a given
casting of being. As free beings we are bound by this historical casting of
being. So human freedom is also a bond.

> >If the way the world opens up in an understanding of being (which is always
> >a shared, historical understanding of beings as a whole and as such) changes,
>
> >our way
> >of living changes too. The struggle to bring an other historical casting of
> >being
> >out into the open is the task of thinking, paired with artistic creation,
> >whose
> >works also cast an other world-opening. Both are acts of human freedom
> >proceeding
> >from rare individual _archai_ who are attuned to the granting of being.
> AC:
> Then that is what I want to ask about - this attunement to the granting of
> being. If even this attunement must already be ontologically understood
> (which must always be the case), then wouldn't your response to Henry above
> also apply to what you say here - namely, that even this casting would still
> be "held captive" within the same mode of thinking? How is it then ever
> really possible to "step back" in order to "cast an other world-opening",
> even for such rare individual archai?

First, an attunement to the world is always accompanied "equiprimordially" by an
understanding that is captive to a given historical casting of being. This
_accompaniment_ means that there is also a resonance with being that escapes a
given understood world-casting. World opens up to human being both in
understanding and attunement. The latter is always a resonance with being as a
whole, in being uplifted or downcast. The phenomenon of music is a prime example
of that.

Second, a step back is only possible through questioning that gains an overview
of the metaphysical casting of being. The possibility of the step back is
therefore specific to our historical situation, and questioning is the human
power that can break the power of being held captive-to... by being open to the
resonance with what being grants.

> > > >ME:
> > > > There are at least two ways in which the cast is not of one's own
> >making:
> > > > i) Each of us is always already cast into a situation over which we
> >have no
> > > > control.
> > > > Only starting from that given situation can we cast our own casting.
> > > > ii) The casting we make is not genuinely our own, but adopted from the
> > > > others. This
> > > > amounts to conformity, more or less subtle. Conformity in one's
> > > > thinking consists in
> > > > just 'going along with' what others think without thinking it through
> > > > for oneself.
> > > HS:
> > > and vis a vis this, the archae?
> >ME:
> >Maybe a recovery of one's very own _archae_ from blind assimilation to the
> >others.
> AC:
> But is that ever possible, given that any such recovery from blind
> assimilation to the others would have to be already ontologically understood
> precisely from within that blind assimilation to the others? Is that really
> freedom, then?

I think there are two levels here to recovering one's individual self. The first
is to put into question the normal, accepted way of living, i.e. not just to
blindly accepted how 'one' is to live within the normal practices and
perspectives of everyday life. The second is the possibility of a philosophical
questioning that is able to put the ontological casting of being into question.
That is then the lonely philosopher, who is cast into the highest form of human
freedom.

But even within the normalcy of how 'one' understands the world and within the
conformity to what is 'expected' of one, there is a  freedom that remains
unpredictable. That is the most superficial level; the 'freedom' of market
relations, for instance, whether a consumer buys this product or that and when
and how much.

>
> Anthony Crifasi

Michael
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-  artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-artefact-AT-t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_






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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005