Heidegger

Cologne 27-Jul-2007

Bernx at aol.com schrieb Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:10:03 EDT:

> In a message dated 7/26/2007 12:03:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> artefact at t-online.de writes:
>
> ….As I say in another article, Heidegger insists on
> tarrying at the
> beginning, but this is wholly inadequate. Rather, the
> ontological structures
> unthought by both metaphysical thinking and Heidegger’s need
> to be brought to
> their ontological concepts instead of violently subsuming
> them beneath the
> traditional metaphysical categories, all of which are
> oriented toward a _single_
> source of power (_dynamis_). Because Heidegger does not
> grasp that (social) power
> is an interplay (not merely an interaction), his thinking
> can only beat the
> retreat to the clearing of self-hiding and assume a waiting
> stance for the
> “powerless power of beyng”. No wonder the Zen-inspired
> thinkers of Japan have
> found themselves attracted to Heidegger’s thinking.
>
> Both metaphysical thinking and Heidegger’s no longer
> metaphysical thinking are
> oriented toward the one, _to hen_. For Heidegger the One is
> (the truth of) Beyng.
> Neither thinking can cope with dyadic ontological structures
> that do not come to
> rest in a single origin (of power).
>
> Michael:Perhaps Heidegger overlooks too much in Aristotle insofar as
> he, as you note, has transcribed dynamis as an arche “power.” He thus
> neglects potentia and energeia and the protohyle (ousia) and which
> Aristotle noted as within or inner predisposed end (for completion)
> qua entelicheia.

ME: Heidegger surely doesn’t neglect _energeia_ (just look at his
briliant 1931 lectures on Met. Theta), but he does give priority
(rightly, in my view) to the phenomenon of Kraft (force) in his
interpretation over _dynamis_ qua Moeglichkeit or possibility.

>
> Thus Heidegger’s social and political view lapses partisan and
> bifurcated, e.g,when he notes and upholds the Germanic
> post-philosphical Third Reich as rightuously the paradigm of spiritual
> intelligence: “… All things sank to the same level, a surface
> resembling a blind mirror that no longer reflects, that cast nothing
> back. The prevailing dimension became that of extension and number.
> Intelligence no longer meant a wealth of talent, lavishly spent, and
> the command of energies, but only what could be learned by everyone,
> the practice of a routine , always associated with a certain amount of
> sweat and a certain amount of show.” Thus the uber mensch stands
> supreme over the collective ideal of democracy and as the surface
> ideal of dasein. Subsequently, he continues, ” In America and in
> Russia this development grew into a boundles etcetera of indifference
> and always-the-sameness- so much so that the quantity took on a
> quality of its own. Since then the domination in those countries of a
> cross section of the indifferent mass has become more than a dreary
> accident. It has become and active onslaught that desroys all rank and
> every world-creating impulse of the spirit and calls it a lie. This is
> the onslaught of what we [Germany. ed.] call the demonic (in the sense
> of destuctive evil), there are many indications of the emergence of
> this demonism, identical with the helplessness of and and uncertainty
> against it and within itself. One of these signs of is the
> emasculination of the spirit through misinterpretation; we we are
> still in the midst of this process…”And of course his philosophy and
> the military approach of Germany proved to be a cure worst than the
> cited maladies of Russia and America and he concludes: “But this order
> becomes false once we [Germans, ed] understand the true essence of the
> spirit. For all true power and beauty of the body, all sureness and
> boldness in combat, all authenticity and inventiveness of the
> understanding , are grounded in the spirit and rise or fall only
> through the power of impotence of the Spirit. The spirit is the
> sustaining, dominating principle, the first and the last, not merely
> an indispensable third factor.”This identification of power and the
> zeitgeist represents the climax of the daseinic exterorization of the
> via regia to the ensuing catastrophe. Years before the Irish poet
> William ButlerYates poetically iterated as much when in 1921 he
> anticipated in his “Second Coming” the spectre of the Spiritous Mundi,
> again as Zeitgeist or the Stoic Logos Spermatikos by which an almighty
> male inseminator intrudes on the destiny of world and its
> history.Ignored or precluded in all cases is Matter, Mater Ousia that
> is compromised as a sphinx as both lion and human, much as Heraklietos
> fancied the Logos as Fire. The poet Yates notes: “Turning and turning
> in the widening gyre/ The falcon cannot hear the falconer;/ Things
> fall apart; the centre cannot hold;/ Mere anarchy is loosed upon the
> world./ The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere/ The ceremony
> of innocence is drowned;/ The best lack all conviction, while the
> worst/ Are full of passionate intensity.” “Surely some revelation is
> at hand;/surely the Second coming is at hand./ The Second Coming!/
> Hardly are those words out/ When a vast image of Spiritus Mundi/
> Trouble my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert/ A shape with
> lion body and the head of a man/ A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
> / Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it/ The darkness drops
> again; but now I know/ Were twenty centuries of stony sleep/ Were
> vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,/ And what rough beast, its
> hour come by round at last, / slouches toward Bethlehem to be
> born?” What be this great beast but Its seminal extruded technae
> extended into the world and its dasein as strictly in the service of a
> male singularity. sincerely;Bernard
> http://hometown.aol.com/bernx/index.htmw…

ME: The weakness in Heidegger’s interpretation of Aristotle’s key
concepts of _dynamis_, _energeia_ and _entelecheia_ is far simpler and
therefore much harder to see. viz. that the metaphysical concept of
_dynamis_ depends essentially on there being a SINGLE _archae_, rather
than a dyadic ontological structure, which is required when considering
any social phenomenon whatsoever. ONE must become TWO to attain an
ontologically well-founded concept of interplay. Only then can it be
seen philosophically that power can never be unified in one source, but
remains forever in play as a power play.

The irony is that Aristotle gave us a huge clue by employing the
ambiguous Greek word _metabolae_, meaning both ‘change’ and ‘exchange’
in his core definition of _dynamis_, viz. _archae metabolaes in allooi
ae haei allos_. Aristotle chose ‘change’ as the appropriate SINGLE
meaning and thus set the entire history of PRODUCTIONIST metaphysical
thinking in train. With the alternative signification of _metabolae_ as
‘exchange’ or ‘interchange’ an entirely OTHER incipient historical
course for ontological thinking is set in train. Then, the interchanges
between and among two or more _archai_ can (begun to) be thought in
their ontological structure.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact at t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

Posted on Friday, July 27th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback