Heidegger

on 28/6/06 8:44 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 27 juni 2006 18:42
> Aan: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
> Onderwerp: Re: Broken Tools
>
>
> on 27/6/06 9:56 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 27 juni 2006 15:32
>> Aan: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
>> Onderwerp: Re: Broken Tools
>>
>>
>> on 26/6/06 5:23 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 That Pete
>>> Verzonden: zaterdag 24 juni 2006 19:21
>>> Aan: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
>>> Onderwerp: Re: Broken Tools
>>>
>>>
>>> — allen scult wrote:
>>>> You might have noticed that some of the boys have
>>>> been bad-mouthing religion, once again
>>>> cataloguing the ridiculous and terrible things
>>>> people do with it, as if that had something to do
>>>> with it.
>>>
>>> I wouldn’t conflate ridiculing people’s religious
>>> pronouncements about hens and red cows with denigrating
>>> divinity, theology, or piety. As Heidegger says, the
>>> Greeks’ relationship to the divine is not like the
>>> Romans’ religio.
>>>
>>>
>>> either this remains a communication without consequence,
>>> or one adds sthing as to how the immurement of aletheia by
>>> Roman imperialism can be lifted.
>>>
>>> You are all doing the same, Allan, Bob, Tympan: stating
>>> words by others, and keeping them so in the postmodern realm,
>>> so that meaninglessness, monotheism, Jahweh, Jesus, money, all
>>> the same, go on dominating unhindered. At the bottom of this
>>> practice is sheer malice, and it shows ever more clearly.
>>> All impotence falls prey to it.
>>>
>>> That Hegel, Heidegger and others are used for nihilist purposes,
>>> belongs to nihilism itself. Therefore the destruction of Heidegger
>>> is an essential sign. It shows very clearly in his being quoted.
>>>
>>> rene
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> heidegger mailing list
>>> heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
>>> http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/mailman/listi…
>>> http://heidegger.an-archos.com/
>>
>> it is not mere malice. The impending death of myself, my family friends and
>> lovers is a tragedy, and a certain tragedy, all of us will be gone from here
>> in the blink of an eye, and “the window will be closed for us” as Malcom
>> once said to me. I hate the lie, the sick predators whom prey on the
>> fragility of the human condition. One of my friends has liver cancer, bone
>> cancer- she has two children under seven, and a third only ten. I would
>> dearly like to launch a radical ’secular’ crusade against organized religion
>> and the collection of evil ‘rockspiders’ who drive its cause. John the
>> Baptist said that when the massire comes, he will coming bearing an axe,
>> which he will wield without mercy - well I’ve got a machine gun, so he’d
>> bloody well better not come anywhere near me. pk
>>
>>
>> Sure Peter, who is not right nowadays?
>> Heidegger’s assessment though is that not only organized religion but *any*
>> organization has the cancer of nihilism inside. And if we would look closer,
>> it would appear not even to be a cancer. So that there can be no cure and no
>> leader curers. We cannot just cut away what has made us during thousands of
>> years. Or do you think what the Republicans did to Spanish priests, or the
>> Russians to religious children etc etc, is liberating? It merely softens
>> the cancer of widerwille temporarily.
>>
>> See my next post on how religion became ensnared into ontotheology, that is:
>> metaphysics, and the fatal conequences this entailed, the moment metaphysics
>> was
>> completed and blown away like dust. Metaphysica melaina! That throws a
>> different
>> light on Heraclitus..
>>
>> regards
>> rene
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> heidegger mailing list
>> heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
>> http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/mailman/listi…
>> http://heidegger.an-archos.com/
> by radical ’secular’ I actually mean an organization that is grounded ‘in
> the world’- i mean immersion in the sensual world, a comportment towards
> authenticity in the face death- and is not merely ‘organization’.
>
> In order for these words to make sense, so that we are dependent on what
> *you* are meaning, one should know what ‘world’, ’sensual’, ‘comportment’
> mean. As long as that is left out, they are superfit to claim rightness,
> and everybody is right within the dialectic realm. You once more showed,
> only a bit less sophisticated, how dangerous, within an unknown realm,
> the traditional words have become, if they are not founded anew, tuned
> otherwise.
> Meanwhile ripping out hearts proves to be the best thing one can do.
> One thing is still better: make others handle the machines. The Aztec
> priests at least did the dirty handwork themselves. Ah, we’re ready,
> we’ve returned to the beginning of your letter: sensual world and
> authentic death. The realm cannot be denied without showing consequences.
>
> best
> rene
>
>
>
> I meant to
> make that point more clearly but thought you guys would understand that I
> used the word to refer to worldliness, and Being in the world- not just any
> old ‘organization’, or a reference to people who merely do not got to church
> much. But if you like you can address my cancerous organization (and I do
> take your point) as being permaanently under erasure in regards the
> determinism of your nihilism- and yes I would be prepared to do terrible
> things, but the romans did terrible things- but in the end, their
> organizations and ordering of the world resulted in the current and growing
> humanist orierntation of ‘civilization’ which adds up to a whole lot more
> misery being driven from the worlds continents and peoples. There are not as
> many barefoot and pregnant women, less domestic violence, less diseaese,
> less famine, freedom of speech, less despots, better treatment of the worlds
> less fortunate and disabled. All because the Romans KNEW they had to
> slaughter Germans. In the end, its just mass benefit, against a few broken
> eggs. But I entirely understood your critic of my post- but its a bit subtle
> for my headstrong ways- I have ‘faith’ in the notion of radical
> revolutionary social egineering- and thus the notion ‘enemy of the
> revolution’- and how, now that I get to the end, I critic you and your
> critic of my post. (not that I mind someone replying to my post). As I have
> said in a previous post, ‘Stalin’ was right, to persecute the church, and
> especially right to sacrifice the flower of Ruussia’s youth to defeat the
> Nazis. He was a monster, but his place in history means that the proletariat
> is now not so completely downtrodden and disenfrachised, and Reinhard
> Heydrich didn’t succeed Hitler, to be the undisputed Fuhrer of the world.
> pk
> __
>
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________
> heidegger mailing list
> heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
> http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/mailman/listi…
> http://heidegger.an-archos.com/
> _______________________________________________
> heidegger mailing list
> heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
> http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/mailman/listi…
> http://heidegger.an-archos.com/

yes I concede, but your suggestions that I ground my framework in regards
the episteme is a substantial task- I’m nothing If not lazy and a poor
scholar, I should do what Heidegger does at the beggining of BT in regards
groundings his rhetoric amongst a reappraisal of originary texts. Yes, the
traditons of truth that make up always already metaphysics in every thing we
’say’ is a fact of life- but respectfully refer you to my qualification of
‘erasure’; of course metaphysics is always about the invisible assumptions
me make about truth, Being and the world. But I still want to throw
christians to lions, (we have great colloseum style AFL arenas in Oz).
regards pk

Posted on Wednesday, June 28th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback