Heidegger

BobG:
> Hello MichaelP,
>
> Dunno if you remember my appeals to the list a couple’ve two three years
> ago largely based on your arguments (idle chatter, opinion, reports v
> philosophy) of course not nearly as elegantly made as you make them but
> roughly the same and, of course, they made no difference .. and altho I
> genuinely wish that your efforts will be more successful, I highly doubt
> it,,,,sadly,,,,I took the time to checkout the urls that Malcolm provides
> and it is now more clear than ever that there is nothing but dug-in
> political heels here. I mean that was already clear but now it is stark, naked
CLEAR.

Hi Bob, yes I remember (and I’ve raised this several times); I’m not
bothered by the opinions and outrages themselves, or even their
well-worn-ness and restriction, but the very fact of them (thatness not
whatness) in their bold exclusion of even an inkling of philosophical
discourse. Used as a divertimento or prelude to thinking, fine, but on their
own…

BobG:
> Is there a plan B?
>
> ..I mean, I love the philosophy that does sneak in every once in a while,
> now and again,,,,uhmmm,,,,perhaps it truly is as simple as knowing the
> score and moving on ,,, I almost want to simply ask if we are adults that
> can know we have different political views and set them aside if not
> totally then for the most part …

Perhaps the only plan B is to begin a discussion, a philosophical
discussion, on the problematic relation of thinking (not mere cogitating,
opinionating, reporting of views, outraged expression, etc) to currency (the
be-ing of contemporary events and their eventualising, etc). This could both
side-step and include those writings that merely aspire to righteous
journalisms, and those recent (on this list) ‘writings’ that merely enable,
silently (i.e., nothing *said* or even spoken!) two websited fragments
(pictures of graphs if I remember correctly) to stare at each other like
those loudspeakers on either side of some disputed (Chinese? Korean?) border
issuing forth canned messages with no-one actually present to hear them…
is this what thinkerly discussion has become?

Otherwise back to music&sex.

regards

michaelP

>
> Bob
>
>
>>From: michaelP
>>Date: 2006/08/06 Sun AM 10:08:47 CDT
>>To:
> Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger

>>Subject: Re: amadeus absconditus
>
>>>> Rene:
>>>> > Well i’ll wait here, till you, rational beings, are able to respond.
>>>> >
>>>> > but let it be said that unability to do so, shows. - that is another
>>> side
>>>> > of the name-less: that also denial and stubborn Eigensinn have no
>>>> > place to hide from it. So as long as nobody responds you are all,
>>>> > except Jud maybe, striking yourselves out. I would advise to take that
>>>> > seriously, but you are free (eh!) to do so. Cosi fan tutte!
>>>> BobS:
>>>> > rene,
>>>> > In these frantic days of precision slaughtering refugee women and
>>>> > babies, how can any topic else have standing? instead of obsessively
>>>> > playing the desparate suffering of the victims of his gangster gov’t, as
>>> he
>>>> > ought, the pianoplayer is sounding false notes of mozartian whimsy.
>>
>>
>>michaelP:
>>>> Well, precisely sex and music (when they’re good, that is) are the best
>>>> antidotes to your “precision slaughtering refugee women and babies”, etc,
>>>> when no real philosophy is allowed to show itself in the righteous barrage
>>>> of opinions and outrage.
>>
>>BobS:
>>> so the pt of art and phil is escape from reality?
>>
>>No, Bob, not at all: I said that art and sex are antidotes (hygeinic,
>>necessary for being healthy enough to face stuff) not an escape, and that
>>such antidoting is useful in the *absence* of actual philosophical discourse
>>on the horror (or whatever occupies currency, currently), and that righteous
>>opinionating and reportage by themselves do not constitute philosophical
>>discourse (and this is a philosophy discussion list, n’est pas?).
>>
>>michaelP:
>>>>This is a question (that of the relationship
>>>> between philosophical discourse and so-called current events where such
>>>> discourse is not covered by or dominated by mere opinion and journalistic
>>>> reportage but seeks to move beyond such perspectivalisms…) I have raised
>>> a
>>>> number of times, to almost utter silence: I’m not really bothered, but it
>>>> seems to me that vocal list members would prefer to engage and express
>>> their
>>>> banal outrage (etc) rather than embrace the slightest inkling of
>>>> philosophical reflection regarding such (horrendous) events. It’s
>>> Heidegger
>>>> Absconditus, it seems to me.
>>
>>BobS:
>>> true, heid did try to purge reality, mitsein, from his thinking. you find
>>> that a thing to emulate?
>>
>>Again, Bob, not at all, what I said was: this list, insofar as it *merely*
>>expresses outrage and opinion re current events, approximates the absconding
>>of Heideggerian thinking as I understand it. I wanna see some Heideggerian
>>thinking of current horrors and pleasures. I think you’ve missed an
>>opportunity to engage with my quest by moving into a softly attacking mode.
>>
>>michaelP:
>>>> One could do a lot worse than reflect on the nature of some of the terms
>>>> being bandied about (without thought), e.g., stealing land, victim, racism
>>> &
>>>> race, indigenous people, slaughter, war, etc, rather than continue in
>>>> thoughtless position-swapping.
>>
>>BobS:
>>> i agree philosophy has to find its universe in the stupendous mitsein of its
>>> time which you above contemptuously term journalism, so which is it?
>>
>>Philosophy is never journalism (and however stupendously prevalent
>>world-wide idle chatter has become, philosophy, in thinking the current,
>>should not itself repeat the ubiquitousness of journalism) but repetition of
>>well-worn views on this and that, etc, can well approximate journalism (even
>>tabloidal haemorrhaging). I am using the term ‘journalism’ to mean
>>unthinking reportage, expression of impressions (without properly thinking
>>{in Heideggerian terms, that is; I don’t mean the absence of cogitation})
>>and so on. Such are fine if only a prelude to the real philosophical
>>symphony or fugue, but by themselves they are just cries of outrage or
>>support of whatever, or anger or righteous indignation, etc, and however
>>interesting they might be, they are not philosophy.
>>
>>Gimme (philosophical) shelter! {from what one reads in the papers, watches
>>on the chattering box, captures in the stuttering gossip of the net, etc,
>>every shagging day}.
>>
>>regards
>>
>>michaelP
>>
>>>> Give me the joyful pianoplayer rather than the righteous plaintiff anyday.

Posted on Monday, August 7th, 2006 at 6:45 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback