From: "bob scheetz" <rscheetz-AT-cboss.com>
Subject: Re: grave thots on a great hack
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 14:02:50 -0400



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl>
To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 7:19 AM
Subject: RE: grave thots on a great hack


>
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> [mailto:owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]Namens henry
> Verzonden: vrijdag 11 juni 2004 12:43
> Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> Onderwerp: RE: grave thots on a great hack
>
>
>
> do we not desire the secure days of monks and monasteries where the
> legends have it the good monk does not die until granted permission by
> his superior... and now we're all supposed to be benedictines in thrall
> to the medical technology delivery system industry and its speedy
> R&D/Mkt'g/pharmo-fashion dept. that gives the glamour to the similitude
> of my ownmost potentiality for being...
>
> oblivion creeps further along inside this side, like fumes from under
> the door.
>
> somewhere brooding here is the existentiale of stupidity...
> the one heidegger left secret or erased in the first draft, following
> plato or at least aristotle.
>
> that will to will does not bring stupidity up to philosophy, but rather...
>
> how can we not be enmeshed in the transcendental posture of stupidity
> aka gestell?
>
>
>    Henry,
>
>    Imo only by acknowledging that we are completely enmeshed. Only then
the
>    need to take distance can really rise. And only when the need is
rising,
>    a way can be sought.
>
>    All other 'approaches' get stuck in the return of the same. That has
already
>    been decided. Metaphysics and subjectivity are in their completion
phase,
>    still using (and needing!!!!) the human subject. Seeing this, is
acting.
>    It feels stupid  - the change from subject to Dasein - , always again
so,
>    but i think it's not.
>
>    rene
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bakker, R.B.M. de wrote on 6/11/04, 6:10 AM:
>
>  > Bob, Henry,
>  >
>  >    Isn't he the 'living' proof of the inability to die?
>  >
>  >    Being instaendig cautious towards the constant terror
>  >    of biologistic fraud, sooner or later the possibility
>  >    might present itself to one, that death and sickness are
>  >    maybe not just biological happenings.
>  >
>  >    And that the machenschaftliche fear of Altzheimer has more
>  >    to do with Angst and its forgetting, than with the DNA lottery
>  >    of god Man.
>  >
>  >    But then, the aggravating dementia and dementi in the rational
>  >    zoo, something different as well from what is normally thought.
>  >    Another finger pointing at the living dead.
>  >
>  >    rene
>  >
>  >    cave canem

rene,
it does appear the time of danger, collision of the inertia of the
life-force with the-end-of-oil (return-of-the-same being less than eternal
after all, eh?), may be immanent, ...signifying maybe end-of-man,
armageddon, ...maybe, beginning of (let's hope, socialist) zarathustra, eh?
but only in the former, the end of subjectivity? ...descartes' ego was
contemporaneous with both incipit bourgeois and completion of the feudal
ethos and theology with le roi soliel, ...the need to supercede bourgeois
subjectivity is as clear now as, feudal, then, ...but less clear, the
assertion of the  tout court nihility of subjectivity.  what you are
contending for sounds to me like hen's benedictines doing without body,
...heid's dasein without mine-ness?
bourgeois subject-object metafisic needs superceded, but why not heightened
subjectivity? inter-subjectivity? ...omni-subjectivity? ...for newman?



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