Subject: RE: more porn?
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 17:55:43 +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: maandag 31 mei 2004 21:45
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Onderwerp: Re: more porn?



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: more porn?


> bob scheetz wrote:
>
> >michael,
> >      don't know if your including me among the offenders on this head;
> >but,
> >in any event, the category "porn" is a mischaracterization.  the real
> >subject is cruelty, inhumanity, murder, mechanized slaughter,...; done in
> >mine and your name and with mine and your dollars.  to reduce it to a
> >casus:
> >if you  were present at a torture, and screamed "bloody murder" to call
> >attention and stop it, would you then be justly liable to the accusation
of
> >sensationalizing?
>
> The fact that you agreed with Tudor and STILL inject morality into
> authenticity (i.e., "cruelty, inhumanity, murder" nonchalantly together
with
> "MECHANIZED slaughter" - the latter an existential analysis, the former
not
> at all) shows that you have an immature understanding of Heidegger. Not to
> mention your casual mention of "justice" (justification, justified) in
this
> "existential" note.
>
> Bob, do you even know what the hell you are talking about?

yes, yes, yer essentialising, "morality is nothing moral", ...and therefore
revulsion at elite killers and torture is nothing authentic, just immature
ressentiment, ...i know well enuf yer inane philosophical glibness, anthony.
but when heid spoke up after the lifting of totalitarian thot control (tudor
didn't intorduce this complication) to the effect that the only thing wrong
with the holocaust was its mechanization that's proof (for me, tho obviously
not for you) of his own thorogoing inauthenticity.


   Bob,

   The inauthenticity was in the question, and it was a malicious one:
   it tried to catch not only the man, but his thinking. And he saved that,
   by giving much bigger disasters back, like food production, which
   kills earth and sky alike, and so the 'habitat' of all those existing.

   So Heidegger's question back is: why don't you see yourself this 
   immoralist robbing away of earth and sky? I have a way of dealing
   with it, that is my thinking of Being. But this is precisely what 
   you want to get rid of, by asking ME, of all, whether i find Auschwitz
   criminal. That's an insult by itself. 
   

   Heidegger's word can, however, like any other, be misused for spoiled
   purposes. Let there be no misunderstanding how Heidegger thought of
   killing and abuse.

   regards
   rene











ever consider the law, anthony?




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


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