Heidegger

—–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
Van: heidegger-bounces at soca.ecu.edu.au
[mailto:heidegger-bounces@soca.ecu.edu.au]Namens peter k
Verzonden: donderdag 29 juni 2006 14:54
Aan: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
Onderwerp: Re: Broken Tools

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.

Your “equally” *might* be dangerous. Either forgetting means
still a form of getting, so that oblivion would not merely be
negative, or all names, incl. the words which Heidegger took
in consideration during his life, are equally illusion, ‘text’.
It seems that Derrida himself became forgetful in a later phase?

regards, peter k

p.s. you could read BT as a kind of ‘fairy tale’; if you wanted- since like
all semiotic activity 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

Again, that depends. On whether one erases all darkness by the
text-words ‘text’, ‘fiction’, ’semiotics’. OR, whether that is
a first step on a way where everything clarified only makes the
dark more mysterious. The choice to be silly or not is also
jemeinig, one does it oneself. I feel often silly too.

rene

Posted on Thursday, June 29th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback