Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:16:57 +0100
From: artefact-AT-t-online.de (Michael Eldred)
Subject: Re: blame


Cologne 03-Feb-2004

Henry Sholar schrieb Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:37:54 -0500:

> On Feb 3, 2004, at 10:13 AM, Bakker, R.B.M. de wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> > [mailto:owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]Namens Henry Sholar
> > Verzonden: dinsdag 3 februari 2004 13:48
> > Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> > Onderwerp: Re: blame
> >
> >
> >
> > On Feb 3, 2004, at 5:38 AM, Bakker, R.B.M. de wrote:
> >
> >> Nihilism (not capitalism, there is no capitalism, cos
> >> there's no alternative anymore, only indifferent ego-ism,
> >> the ego being society) is both: destroying and allowing
> >> to be destroyed: it's a structure, where the od is unvisible
> >> but more powerful.
> >
> > How does this reduction to ego-ism
> > clarify capital and nihilism?
> > thanks,
> > hen
> >
> >
> >     Henry,
> >
> >     Ego-ism, when it is of metaphysical provenience, is not per se
> >     reducable to personal selfishness. Like Kant's 'I' is not limited
> >     to humans: there's also an I that intuits intellectually (creates).
> >     To Kant, however, such an eternal I is "an abyss to us", we are
> >     not capable of any idea of it. (contra all metaphysics so far)
> >     Fichte c.s. immediately claim this I, and work it out absolutely,
> >     so that all objectivities (state, jurisdiction, religion etc.) are
> >     absolutely, unconditioned, understood by this non-personal 'I'.
> >     Will to power turns it into the basic and necessary fiction, after
> >     which it can be forgotten as absolutely in will to will, which
> > allows
> >     only a nominal role to it. Which means: whoever still says: 'I',
> >     conforms to a general I, which can also be called subjectivism, and
> >     the essential way it works: lying. (Otherwise Blair would explode).
> >
> >     Whatever and whoever has still sthing traditionally substantiate
> > in 'm
> >     (incl. other traditions) is put on the elimination list and
> > attacked.
> >     (This is will to will: nothing but will is tolerated)
> >     This is seldom (Arabs) needed, cos we surrender voluntarily. Those
> > who
> >     resist, are forced to respond in the language of the Gestell.
> >
> >     Same with capital. It's only acceptable now when it conforms to
> > nihilism
> >     and Gestell. There's not much else one can do with it, except
> > opponency,
> >     but that is Gestell too.
> >
> >     So ego and capital are now completely immersed in Gestell, still
> > granting
> >     selfish bourgeois individuality to the happy few, but the number
> > is ever
> >     more decreasing. Powerless masses are essential to the process.
> >
> >     The lying by the working animal is thought by H  to be a necessary
> > phase.
> >     It would be the ending (verb) of the truth of beings
> > (metaphysics), and
> >     turn into the truth of Being. And, although i can imagine nothing,
> > I'm more
> >     and more thinking that he's 'right'. There is no alternative than
> > to complete
> >     the downfall, that has already happened, and begin anew.
> >
> >     rene
> >
>
> Thanks Rene,
>
> Your thoughts were reflected to me somehow
> in the very next thing I read this AM, to wit:

Henry,
You should perhaps keep in mind that Heidegger's hotline to the true word on
capitalism is E. Juenger's Der Arbeiter, which appeared in 1932 and was a
contributing factor to Heidegger's Rektorat fiasco. It is a wonder that
Juenger's affirmation of political totalitarianism and tatty, scrappy
metaphysics was accorded so much respect by Heidegger. TWICE I have posted a
critical commentary in this forum on Juenger's Der Arbeiter without eliciting
any well articulated objections.

So beware when capitalism is so easily and unquestioningly assimilated into
the magic formula of the "will to will" mouthed in a state of luminary
absence. These diagnosticians of world history may have assimilated Heidegger
through endless unquestioning om-incantation, but questions remain
nevertheless.

"The perishing (Verendung) [of metaphysics] _lasts_ longer than the previous
history of metaphysics." ('Ueberwindung der Metaphysik' in _Vortraege und
Aufsaetze_ Neske 1985 I S.67)
i.e. two and a half millennia.

"Completed metaphysics, which is the ground of the planetary way of thinking,
provides the framework for an order of the earth that will presumably last a
long time." (XII S.79)

So we have a long time to (learn to) think after the "end of philosophy"
(ibid.).

E.g. what is missing in the following list?
"This term [technology, Technik] comprises all regions of beings, each of
which adjusts [zuruesten] the totality of beings: objectified nature,
functioning culture, made politics and the superstructural ideals." (X S.76)

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

>
>
> Sept. 2002: The CIA is underrepresenting the threat posed by Iraq.
>
> Oct. 2002: The CIA needs to stop claiming that the White House is
> overstating the threat posed by Iraq.
>
> Early 2003: In the battle between the White House and the CIA,
> the White House is right and the CIA is wrong: Iraq poses a far
> more serious threat than the CIA will admit.
>
> Late 2003: Everyone agreed all along about the nature of the
> threat posed by Iraq. There never was a battle over the intelligence
> between the CIA and the White House.
>
> Early 2004: The CIA overrepresented the threat posed by Iraq,
> overwhelming the White House in the battle over the intelligence.
>
> These are the processes that "complete the downfall."
>
>








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