Heidegger

—–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
Van: heidegger-bounces at soca.ecu.edu.au
[mailto:heidegger-bounces@soca.ecu.edu.au]Namens Anthony Crifasi
Verzonden: woensdag 7 juni 2006 18:39
Aan: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
Onderwerp: Re: Germans outplayed by Ahmadinejad in their own
Spiegel/Mirror

—– Original Message —–
From: “Bakker, R.B.M. de”

One can measure anything. But whether it makes sense to measure, has
clearly ontological implications. For instance if one uses dogs, one
wants to say: i am over, you are under, and the dog is between. So you
are less than a dog.

====================
“. man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but when separated from law
and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more
dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by
intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if
he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals..”
(Aristotle, Politics I.2)

ontological implications?
====================

Are always there *already*, turn around. Whether man and animal are different
forms of metis, as Aristotle and the Greeks thought, or whether they are
slightly different DNA, makes worlds of difference. Kerberos does not mind.

cave canem

That cannot possibly be right according to Heidegger’s own explication of
how ontology grounds science.

You do not understand that, which affects all your conclusions.

He doesn’t say that scientific calculation
itself betrays a commitment to positivist ontology,

Science, as it is now, *is* the power of exclusive raging calculation.
Your sentences are too light, they go up in smoke themselves, *that* is
terracentrism.

There is also now terrorology. The logos reigns absolute in technology,
and has no problem embracing terror. thanatology, terrorology……
Again: the essential MUST remain somewhere in the house of Being, when denied.
When the liars lie, they blink.

but only that the
treatment of scientific/calculative thinking as philosophically primordial
betrays such.

once more:

But that is what happens. We only want truths, and not truth. But truths
need truth to be true, otherwise they become illusions. Their illusory
character thuogh is not of themselves, but inherited from their
foundation, which is no longer there.

It is therefore perfectly appropriate to conduct scientific
studies and polls on human beings,

It is therefore the most dangerous thing to go on using pseudo-science
on human beings.

=====================
Hence the need to ground the claim of “pseudo,” beyond merely your saying
that it’s “pseudo” because of its threat to your (denied) politics.
=====================

No, i have said more. Instead your reproach ‘terracentrism’ betrays what
you deign not to see: the earth as object of plunder and the nuclear
consequences which now are in the center of global politics. There where
it is directed since the deracination began: oil and pogroms in Russia,
and the beginning of the East-West storm. The US took the opportunity
to get rid of Germany, the main concurrent. England, according to its
nature, chose to deliver its empire to the US, not to Europe.

as long as these are not treated as an
analysis of Being of beings - and I never treated them that way. Human being
can show itself *scientifically* too - otherwise, anthropology and sociology
would not be sciences based on empirical data.

They are no longer. One can prove what one wishes.
One can measure anything, but that does not always, mostly not,
lead to knowledge. When not it is fake knowledge, and the transmitter
fake. So there are clearly ontological implications in all ontic
dealings.
For instance if one uses dogs, one wants to say (inflict): i am over, you
are under, and the dog is between. And you are less than a dog.

=====================
Another:

“.brutishness is a less evil than vice, . for it is not that the better part
has been perverted, as in man,-they have no better part. .for a bad man will
do ten thousand times as much evil as a brute.” (Aristotle, Nich. Eth.
VII.6)

ontological impications?
=====================

Here we are already in Macedony, no longer in Greece. Your Bushes and Clintons
are the millionaires of bruteness. Equality/freedom excuses the massmurder of children.
Sort of the same with Saddam’s ‘mother of all wars. Half his army buried under the sand
(great crime), but ‘mother of all wars’, and it is allright.

The famous Spartan general Pausanias, victor in Plataeae, later killed a woman
in Small Asia, out of anger. To the Greeks that is a Frevel, hybris. He was summoned
back to Sparta, where he was stoned in the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, there where
young Spartans were whipped.

But i do not wish to discuss this matter, because the discussion is the
real
fake. Now individuals are convicted for the fraud of this entire war,

==================
“my protests … do not flatter any anti-american position, or any current
political entity.” (Rene de Bakker, 5/10/06)
==================

which
is just the last of many and all based on deception. You want to get out
of
that, but you brought yourself into it. One better thinks before acting,
instead
of killing the thinkers.
Those not doing, should no longer be allowed to use words like truth and
ontology. As Heidegger writes in 1935: language is the free, selfevident
and
UNHARMED (capitalized by H) instrument for man now. But that is not what
language IS at all. It is possible though to degrade it like that. The
implication
then is total ontological confusion. Confirming thus Seinsverlassenheit.
We really
need Parmenides and Heraclitus to notice what we are in. More
specifically:
logos as dimension. Your scientific Aristotle reading threatens to
crumble too.

===================
Does that include the two above Aristotles?
===================

polls revealed, that Dutch youth is very happy. But i know they are not.
and i also know why they say such, because i know them. Another poll
revealed that youth is structurally tired. But one can see that too.
IN fact they are so down, that they can’t afford to say they are unhappy.
It’s a damned shame, and th epolling even worse. What a way to treat the
children
But they are not children, they are kids. And ‘kids’ = no problem.
To neglect this, and build one’s view and politics on the neglect, that
is
offered to the free individual as a good thing. But they are Hornvieh
them-
selves, made for deceiving. I see these children, i talk to them.

====================
Great, then I know how you can get past the problem that they “can’t afford
to say they are unhappy.” Ask them, If a foreign force invaded and occupied,
and imposed widespread slaughter, murder, rape, dispossession, and tyranny,
would life be:

1. Very good.
2. Quite good.
3. Quite bad.
4. Very bad.
5. Difficult to say.

I predict that they would suddenly be able to afford to say that they would
be unhappy.
====================

peace is sthing else than the absence of war.
you are walking 1,2,3,4,5 way from responsibility, and they know that, you don’t.
That is their hardly recognisable pain. It is a crying shame. They are just left alone,
with everything, esp. sexuality. They are just raised to be prostitutes. But you
probably will accuse the ‘brutality’ of the Spartans.

rene

Posted on Thursday, June 8th, 2006 at 9:35 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback