a question for rene, regarding organization and ‘negative faith’
July 13th, 2006, search relatedRelated posts :: a question for rene, regarding organization and ‘negative faith’ :: a question for rene, regarding organization and ‘negative faith’ :: a question for rene, regarding organization and ‘negative faith’ :: a question for rene, regarding organization and ‘negative faith’
—–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
Van: heidegger-bounces at soca.ecu.edu.au [mailto:heidegger-bounces@soca.ecu.edu.au]Namens allen scult
Verzonden: woensdag 12 juli 2006 18:53
Aan: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
Onderwerp: Re: a question for rene, regarding organization and ‘negative faith’
on 12/7/06 6:28 PM, Bakker, R.B.M. de at R.B.M.deBakker at uva.nl wrote:
>
>
> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> Van: heidegger-bounces at soca.ecu.edu.au
> [mailto:heidegger-bounces@soca.ecu.edu.au]Namens peter k
> Verzonden: dinsdag 11 juli 2006 18:57
> Aan: heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
> Onderwerp: a question for rene, regarding organization and ‘negative
> faith’
>
>
> Rene, regarding what we were talking about before- organization as “has the
> cancer of nihilism inside”. It sudddenly occured to me that there is no
> place for morality in your equation. I’m on record as regarding morality as
> being outside the institutional bounds of phenomenology, but now I’m
> re-examining the question. Nihilism demands morality, because without it
> there is only- (I don’t know what- maybe the holocaust). When about age four
> I asked my mother what happens to you when you die- she replied (somewhat a
> tyrant) they put your body in the ground and it gets eaten by worms. So
> atheism was as a doctrine cultivated very early in my childhood. Later at
> twelve I burnt a bible in secret, the symbol of my commitment to this
> doctrine. Ever since, I rage against organized religion. But somehow,
> intrinsically I know right from wrong, it seems in origin pre- oedipal in
> Lacan’s discursive sense- or is it just the result of socialization after
> entry into the symbolic order. Anyway my question: “cancer of nihilism” vs
> morality as ‘organization’. Would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
>
> regards pk
>
> Peter,
>
> I had no problem with the words of the bible in my youth, only with
> those pronouncing them. In the NT are no commandments, despite what
> is made of it, also no spiritual beyond. So really i do not see your
> problem, except by contamination.
> If what lives around one, flourishes, that is enough for me, and the
> rest is hybris. If all is reduced to that, i see no chances for harming.
> Really Peter, the problem is only for those who try to justify the
> malicious, they have to lie. One just has to take care to stay out of it.
> Even nihilism is then no longer a cancer, it is the reducing of everything
> to the null nothing, esp. morality, and we are in it because we are leaving
> out the positive. That is malicious to the highest degree, and to be
> recognized as such, otherwise one remains dependent. But the malice
> concerned is not owned by the actual actors, who are merely willing victims.
> That is the ontological malum which is just denied, and that is the summit
> of hybris. It is the stuff world wars are made of.
>
> rene
>
>
Peter and Rene,
I was going to start a new thread entitled “The Spinozan Fallacy,” But attaching it here seems more social, which I like to be, when I can. I have taught portions of the “Theological-Political Treatise,” numerous times, because as a serious critique of Biblical Religion, it has no peer. But there is a glaring blind spot (metaphor deliberate) reflecting Spinoza’s lack of perspective on his own perspective–indeed he appears not to recognize that he even has a perspective:
“. . .I determined to examine the Bible afresh in a careful, impartial, and unfetterd spirit, making no assumptions concerning it, and attributing to it no doctrines which I do not find clearly therein set down. (8)
I’m afraid not Baruch. The Ethics can be built on a foundation of such a rigorous Cartesion logic, but here you’re not figuring ontology. In this case you are reading a text in which the “logic” is necessarily a hermeneutical one, built around the structure of interpretation.
This perhaps is old news, but what I wish to announce here is a conceptual formula for understanding Spinoza’s mis-reading in all its fullness. It comes from Deleuze:
“A recent commentator (J.-P . Osier) is able to say that the true originality of the Treatise is in considering religion as an EFFECT. Not only in the causal sense, but in the optical sense, an effect whose process of production will be sought by connecting it to its rational causes as they affect men who do not understand them.”
>From the sublime (Spinoza and Marx) to the ridiculous (our own Gevans[and lately Peter, who is not ridiculous, but there’s no space in the parenthesis for a fourth man}), the error is in mistaking the process of production for the thing itself, in this case, what religion IS, as a possibility of existence. Through the eyes of the phenomenologist, especially the “hermemeutical phenomenologist (Gadamer), Spinoza and Marx are working with a very short-sighted lens, one that is simply not equipped to follow the circular movement of understanding which IS religion (among other things).
Regards,
Allen
Allen, if religion, whatever it is, is so fundamentally misunderstood already by Spinoza, and if, on top of that, his misunderstandings
are themselves misunderstood once more, so that religion has become the post-cartesian fundament of the war of all against all, which
already has begun, should not then those thinking otherwise distance themselves from what is becoming exclusively insalutary?
And thus take away a fundament, which silently is presupposed by the warmongers, as long as no objection makes itself heared?
Either this, or your circular movement is a deceptive one, i can see no space in between, but i am very curious.
regards
rene
