Heidegger

In a message dated 6/4/2007 2:44:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
tgeorgescu at home.nl writes:

The actual West originates in discussions about “dialectics”, i.e. reasoning
by dialogue. In a monistic worldview, there is simply no dialogue, for there
is no discussion partner.
[B] In the East the other “discussion partner” is a transpersonal figure,
such as the oracle in the I Ching. This was also true in ancient Greece at Delphi.
Your “monistic worldview” applies only to social discourse where “the
masses” are polarized by the device of “dialectics” and its spurious limitation to
negation. In Western monism there is also no discussion partner where Freedom
of Speech is banned as in the later Christian Church all the way to the
political socialist dictatorships of the 20th Century in Italy, Russia, Germany and
the de facto socialism of Roosevelt who ruled for 12 years as a virtual
dictator. In such monistic systems the inner dialogue is banned as it is still is
today where there is pretense to freedom of political opinion but no freedom of
Self and the right to individuation.

[B]> The Muslim mood, accordingly, more literally indulges the ontology of
Thanatos and the bliss of pure being more so than it is appreciated in the
West ( although Heidegger tries hard but fails to bring Thanatos up to date
simply because he remained fixated on the
extraversion of Being as dasein and which is endemically a problem of
Germanic introversion).

[T] Germans are introverted, but only relatively, in respect to Americans,
who are most extravert. In respect to Asians and Middle-Easterners, Germans are
altogether extraverted.
[B] Since Rome the Teutonic people were alienated by the tradition of Roman
projecting of dasein which is in fact an intent towards extraversion or
“object seeking.” Since Rome Germnay was bottled up and denied acess to the
Romanoid extraverted social ideal. Both historically and prehistorically the
Teutonic people had great affinity to the Neat East because of the introverted
collective ambiance. This changed only by 1933 when the archaic expression of dasein
by Hitler & co. was curiuously if not acausally parallel to its philosophical
articulation by Heiddeger. Indeed, dasien *ist lose* by compensation to the
collective introversion as is precisely the case with today’s Muslim necessity
to extravert and seek the object “out there” in the ralm of daseinic
extraversion.
[T] C.G. Jung noticed that in the West, the best fit (most desirable human
type) is the extravert, while in the East that is the introvert. In the East, it
is a big shame to promote your ego. In the West, you have to promote your ego
in order to get a job. Empirical psychological
research confirms this.
[B]That’s right. In either case the introversion or extraversion was
culturally enforced and not achieved by either the will or the ego. In all cases,
however, the Roman ideal has perdured and with it the daseinic extraversion.
Historically, however, Germany and The East were not embraced by this ideal until
Hitler tried to implement it as an instrument for world conquiest and as has
been the case with the Muslim East for the last 300 years and in climax today.
> Thus the historic and prehistoric affinity of
> the Teutonic Hyperboreans evolved as “Sea Peoples”, Philistines,
> Aachaens, Dorians and lastly as Viking Norsemen, and all of whom were
> expeditionary and in the compulsion of dasein.

[T]Americans are very extraverted and they have been already fighting “from
the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli”. And Russians, very
introverted people, have a somewhat similar record. So, the extraversion-introversion
dimension does not matter in such respect.
[B]That is nonsense. “Mother” Russia always cleaved to its vast borders and
with little expeditionary intent. When its fleet was sent east it was utterly
defeated by the fledgling Japanese Navy (Russo-Japanese War, 1908). By
contrast, the USA from its very start embraced the Gaeco/Latin extraverted ideal and
where the expeditionary dasein was always in place as essentially invasive.
Even during its “Revolutionary War,” or secession from the Crown, it attempted to
invade Canada. By 1800 it sent a Naval squadron to defeat the Muslim pirates
of the Mediterranean. The American “Civil War” to “save the Union” was in fact
the prelude to the dasein of the USA as a future “super-power.” Dasein was
thus built into the American “manifest destiny” and which today is at climax and
closure.
> In all cases the attermpt to break out of the “Kubla Khan” monad of
> thanatic bliss was sucessful although continuosuly aborted in similiar
> attempts by the Persian and now Islamic people. They were, accordingly,
> less “individual” (extraverted qua dasein) as in the Western
> Hyperborean tradition but no less evolved in personality and power of
> intellect.
[T]I think that in the East their personality is always in the service of the
group. The person itself does not matter much. Marx was very afraid of the
“Asiatic mode of production”, wherein community are the property of the
ruling classes, and what grows higher than the “maize field” has to be cut
down. The West in the only place where “higher than the maize field” has
been allowed to grow (i.e. tolerated).
[B]Well, I guess Marx was wrong, seeing how national communism settled in the
East, rather than for the Romanoid Western Allies: from Russia to china,
N.Korea, N. Vietnam. Although finally settled in the “New World” after the Kennedy
blunder in Cuba and now Venezeula and Nicarauga. Marxian comunnism was
designed for highly industrialized nations but found its mark exclusively in
agricultural “maize field” countries.

sincerely;
Bernard

************************************** See what’s free at http://www.aol.com.

Posted on Monday, June 4th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback