Heidegger

on 29/6/06 10:43 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: 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> heidegger mailing list
> heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
> http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/mailman/listi…
> http://heidegger.an-archos.com/

but isn’t that the nature of defferal; re:

> o that oblivion would not merely be
> negative, or all names, incl.

but I take you point, once agin your on the money- pk

Posted on Friday, June 30th, 2006 at 4:25 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback