Heidegger

on 29/6/06 8:00 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: woensdag 28 juni 2006 20:57
> 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/
> besides rene , why arent your posts subject to the same nihlism, text is
> nothing if not organnization, the phenomenological ‘pureland’ that you
> heideggerrians subscribe as a aprior is bollocks! It could be minutley taken
> apart by a talented post-structuralist thinker (at the risk of catching JUDS
> disease). pk
>
>
> You are right, that i’m no exception. But once one knows that, and insofar
> one knows, one is warned, and that should make the difference. Otherwise
> philosophy would be impossible and everydayness absolute. But we are already
> talking of it, so it must have been shown to us already too.
> It looks a lot like Socrates being the wisest, because only he knows that
> he knows nothing. The difference though is, that to all metaphysics clarity
> is and remains the ideal, and unclarity a way to clarity. (Cusanus: de docta
> ignorantia. Kant: selfrestriction by reason) But this is not so in Heidegger
> (also not in Nietzsche), and in our era, where unclarity, ambiguousness are
> to be seen as essential, and not merely a provisional phase, if one wants to
> ‘know’ anything. Now too much light is the danger, because outshining thought
> by self-evidence.
> Of course, this has not been unknown in fields besides philosophy. Lately
> i found a saying by the French moraliste Vauvenargues: Clarity is the bad
> conscience of the philosophers. But now that the harmony of metaphysics and
> other approaches is over with, now that everyone is *directly* hit by what-is,
> the question of darkness-light (occlusion-appearing, Abwesen-Anwesen) is to be
> brought down to the “hidden dephts of Dasein”. (GA29/30). Spreading light here
> would rob one precisely of the hidden depth, and that means of Dasein itself.
> So, what is to be achieved is finding ways to reach the hidden, and it is
> THEREFORE
> that Heraclitus a.o. are referred to, because one needs another sort of logos
> and
> legein than the absolute logic which is the result of thinking since.
>
> but i agree that the sickness consisting in the claim to be right is looming
> always and everywhere, so that when one has become tired of darkness, the urge
> to be right claims its rights again. It’s just that i am no longer worried by
> it,
> when others pose that claim to me. These are just denying what goes for
> everyone,
> because that would hit them as well.
>
> eh, see?
>
> regards
> rene
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> heidegger mailing list
> heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
> http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/mailman/listi…
> http://heidegger.an-archos.com/

yes nicely put and thus the famous quote in the opening chapter of “What is
Called Thinking”- but Derridas notion of under erasure will do equally well
here- since all names are a covering over of a ‘things’ originary ownmost
being- an essential forgetting.

regards, peter k

p.s. you could read BT as a kind of ‘fairy tale’; if you wanted- since like
all semiotic avtivity it is a fiction; truth only ever being a kind
deterministic assertion at the stories beginning- I’m gonna get posted as
’silly’ again here I can see it coming

Posted on Thursday, June 29th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback