Subject: RE: Die Frage nach der Technik
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:06:45 +0100
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl>




-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
[mailto:owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]Namens michaelP
Verzonden: vrijdag 27 februari 2004 14:05
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Onderwerp: Re: Die Frage nach der Technik


on 27/2/04 12:25 pm, Bakker, R.B.M. de at R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl wrote:

> It's just that, in view of
> all the lying and deceit, Nietzsche is getting stronger and stronger. Merely
> reducing Nietzsche to 'criticism', is an enormous understatement, in view
> of the fact, that Nietzsche's critique of the scientific person, the
> personification of objectivity, also implies a sort of disappearing of man.
> 

Rene, Nietzsche says that with the disappearance of the 'real' world (of
'being') comes the disappearance of the 'apparent' world (of 'becoming', of
angle') too; what are we left with? the non-appearance of appearances? a
play of surfaces with no face upon which they surface? no face... Does he
realise that (underlying all this) being is not something static and
permanent but the very modes of appearing of the apparent, the very modes of
presencing of the present things; that be-ing be-longs with appearance?


    Good question, Michael,
    He does not, and he does not have to, or need to, because Nietzsche
    thinks das Sinnliche/the sensuous as the only appearing (willing, powering),
    not as an (imperfect) appearing of things in themselves (supersensuous).
    This last possible step of metaphysics, that destroys its own essence: 
    the transcendence to the supersensuous, makes it 'complete' (leaves no
    more possibilities)
    The sensuous,   - the only reality we have, he repeats  -  is, true, no
    longer the sensuous as determined by the supersensuous, but ....  awaits
    a new (kind of) determination, requires a new PRINCIPLE of determining:
    Will-to-power. Only in the new light of wtp, the end of metaphysics
    makes sense. The light of wtp only shines when EVERYTHING is wtp, and
    for that Eternal return is necessary.
    The combination of WtP and ER closes definitively off from every possibility
    to ask further: Wtp is the last fact descendable to, ER the highest possible
    thought. The truth or openness of Being can not become questionable, because
    truth to Nietzsche appears as justice as the highest representation of WtP.
    (Of this 'justice' Nietzsche said that it came only very late to him)
    Nietzsche would rather already have taken into view (and hearing) 'Being',
    immediately have thought what all metaphysics and post-metaphysics hears
    when uttering 'Being': Anwesen, being present, substance/subject as the 
    underlying, of itself existing, re-presentation and will as its constituent
    activities. RE-presentation: with regard to an 'I', which presents re-:
    again, but now really, after the first, 'naive' accepting. Fundamentally.
    How re-acts the thinker Nietzsche: that this all is chaos, illusion, but
    (he does not throw away): necessary illusion. In the illusion, the blinking,
    the goldblickering on the belly of the snake vita (fem.) is the 'appearing',
    the 'truth of being' to be thought, but as sthing Nietzsche removes himself
    from. From the perspective that wtp is itself, 'truth of being' would only
    be a weakness, feminine.
    But Heidegger shows, as a post-Niettzschian, thanks to *what* Nietzsche can
    say what he said. But this is not more, but less; accepting what cannot be
    represented. First: *that* representation (and widerwille) has its beginning
    not in itself. And only here Da-sein can possibly begin. 

    (All talk of Ge-stell presupposes intimate knowledge of the Vor-stellen,
     the re-presenting/positioning of above, because it itself is nothing 
     historically.......representable; here is the snake. Always and again
     it turns, what is of itself, into representation, where we are familiar.*
     What has developed into Gestell, is nothing historical. But what then? 
     We can only go back into Vorstellen, into metaphysics, not over it,
     cos there's nothing there)


    *Heidegger quotes, in WhD, the title of a well-known German schoolbook:
     Gods, graves, savants. What happens in such a title, THAT is Gestell,
     throwing different orders on an indifferent heap, the one-sided field of
     vision, that Bilding now is. The same field, wherein a car is much more
     real than the Platonic idea. That's right, but not for philosophers.
          
     Well Michael, i hope there's something making sense in all this, i just
     send it. 

     regards
     rene
       
   
    
     
    



regards

michaelP

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Pennamacoor
Abgrundrisse
tel: 01304 617626
fax: 0870 163 8935
e: michael-AT-abgrundrisse.net
http://www.abgrundrisse.net
http://www.cafeshops.com/Abgrundrisse
http://michael-pennamacoor.fotopic.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------







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


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