Subject: RE: grave thots on a great hack Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:58:09 +0200 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 bob scheetz Verzonden: woensdag 16 juni 2004 5:16 Aan: heidegger list Onderwerp: Re: grave thots on a great hack > Bob, > You're absolutely right in not throwing away subjectivity before acquiring > something else. So i hadn't forgotten your mail with Kant: there's no point > in returning to a new kind of dogmatic metaphysics - sure. > After BT, Heidegger keeps on coming back to Kant and subjectivity -- > compare for instance Jud's 'world': the same objective monster as the Being > of so many Heideggerians, while to Kant world is differentiated: on the one > hand the theoretical realm of a causality, that rules everything and everyone, > on the other a practical world of people. > But Heidegger was taking subjectivity more serious than anyone, so he DIDN'T > let it go by 'overcoming' it. That's what the Heideggerians do, who are > simply bourgeois subjectivists in a very late phase. There is indeed > nothing gained by replacing 'subject' by 'Dasein'. Rather everything is lost, > when Da-sein is substantiated. The hyphen is not a trick, it points exactly > to the how of its being understood (if that is English): without *being* it > oneself, it's all less than nothing. And because also this is not enough he > writes: Da-seyn, to discern it from a metaphysically understood Da-sein. > One could name this heightened subjectivity, but with the warning that > subjectivity is here not to be understood from that one and same eternity. > > (like with Hoelderlin's or Trakl's bread and wine, which in their cases is > not just another variation of the Christian theme. Or Beethoven's missa > solemnis, Berlioz' requiem) > > But it's nothing dreamlike. In fact - in a normal situation i would never > say this - in my subjective life, it has proven quite effective. Without > holding a mirror in front of the dictatorship of inter-omni-subjectivity and > its representations, i would never have gotten my self again, nor would those > who are with me. Again, normally i would never say this, but i don't see any > alternative left than showing the living proofs. And the others show their > proofs, and they're unmistakably utgaardian: the decomposition of the only > reality left: the bodysubject. The discrepancy of the words/images used for > justification, and the rottenness that presents itself, get more and more > frightening. But that at the same time points to where a solution, or the > beginning of it, might lie: that the lies, not only Iraq, but the whole god- > and earthforlorn mess that is intensifying, rob away our last humanity, make it > ugly and endlessly usable. If one has nothing left to resist this ultimate form > of subjectivism, which is a sort of evil beyond good and evil, if one has lost > any possibility to be (the) Da, one is lost. But that is not what the > intellectual chatterers want to hear -but look when and how they run away, > there's a lesson in it- and now is the time to say it a bit more clearly than > Heidegger himself could afford. So i'm afraid we meet on the crossroads of > Verelendung. The *Verelendung* however is the eternity!, and humans only used > for IT! (also Bush's and Kerry's) > But what if there's no one left to expose them TO? As Heidegger often writes: > where are the ears to hear? The ears and the hearing (hoeren) might be missing, > but what never can be left out wholly, insofar the current type of man is still > human, is the suspicion that there's something missing, that they still belong > to... (ge-hoeren) And that those who are said to be less civilized, are in fact > superior, and the only way to fight that is to destroy them, waste them. > Turn them into dwarfs and ants, in order to crush them, like was done 60 years > ago to the Jews. I like Erdogan, the Turkish leader. Very calm and dignified, > he states clearly the impossible and suicidal tactics of Israel. > > As to Malthus and eternity: first the oil seemed to outclass nuclear energy, > the switch of which, as you once wrote, was simply turned off. But now it will > come back again, so that Heidegger is right any way. That is not coincidental: > first there is (meaninglessness, then:) will to will, energy for the sake of > energy, and only then coal, oil, or nuclear energy. It is essential not to > interpret this as essentialism. It is the essential end of essentialism. > Another kind of essence therefore. Just like another kind of (inter)subjectivity, > no longer one that can be constituted, as Husserl still tried. > > rene rene, i'd maybe demur on the stern clavinist mirror stuff, ...in favor of bread and wine, for christ's sake! Bob, They're the same stuff. Maybe one better begin with the relation of Eigentlichkeit and Uneigentlichkeit. but for the rest you're wonderfully convincing. is the Da a kinda placeholder for subjectivity? It's the place, where the decision is to be taken, EITHER to remain subject, OR to ground Dasein. Say the Contributions. Just like the relation above between Eigentlichkeit and Uneigentlichkeit, the relation of subjectivity and Daseins-grounding is not yet determined, still to be seen. What is not seen, almost by nobody, is that all philosophical items, like the ones we're discussing now, and while discussing them, are ALREADY in subjectivity and everydayness. So that we only can see ourselves in everything. Like we give away the tree in the field, and stick to the image of it in our head. But this has immediate and grave consequences for the most factical of our observations and valuations. For instance that torture happens, but that that's not really getting through to us. Not being able to let the tree be, is not being able to let human beings be. The Da, and its openness, are not *opened* and kept open, so that the necessarily lying subject makes itself broader and sterner. This can now almost physically be felt. WHEN this is true, THEN all denials of it are fatal. Fatal in the sense, that then there's no possible way back or out. That is going to be terrible. Anthony's Goddog should be very alarming, but ... it is not getting through. We're in the course of total acceptation. in heine's ode the speaker/subject is at once obliterated by the night and the hearer and interpreter of her comunings, but the question "what's to be done?" obtrudes to no effect, ...thence the annihilation of subjectivity entails loss of will-to-do and facticity? how can one abscent from care and guilt of being in the factical world? Heidegger's de-subjectivation is sthing completely else from post-Hegelian pessimism. But in order to see that, first Nietzsche's distinction of passive and active nihilism must be thought. Overcome the widerwille to active nihilism. What is finished, must be execreted. We're witnessing the effects of physical and mental obesity. If these phenomena are left out as 'ontical' and 'factical', one cannot but reach partial truth: lies, in order to save the shit. One will get uglier, and less able to hide it. More and more dangerous therefore. As to the mirroring, i can only advise to hear the words and forget about them, like with everything truly Heideggerian. (so that once it will come form outside subjectivity) But to do that, one must be ready to accept the verdict of subjectivity, by saying: that's *me*. The only alternative is: looking for victims (Wolfowitz cabal). And turn THEM into dogs. rene cave canem some time ago i had a pitbull barking at me. Dogdammit! --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005