lunar owners - self and other
June 26th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: lunar owners :: lunar owners :: lunar owners :: lunar owners
> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> Van: heidegger-bounces at an-archos.com [mailto:heidegger-bounces@an-
>archos.com] Namens Michael Eldred
> Verzonden: vrijdag 22 juni 2007 18:01
> Aan: Heidegger, An-archos
> Onderwerp: Re: lunar owners - self and other
>
> Cologne 22-Jun-2007
>
> Bernx at aol.com schrieb Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:17:55 EDT:
>
> > In a message dated 6/21/2007 1:41:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > michael at sandwich-de-sign.co.uk writes: “What is the essence of
> sadness
> >
> > and pain? That it necessarily demands the world be other? Or
> > other-wise entirely?” Dear Michael;The world as “other” indicates an
> > identification of self with “this, that, there”out there (in the
> > world) but which in fact is but an empty abstraction. It is more
> > apparent that the malaise of chronic dasein attempts to manipulate
> > “the world” as an expression of the power complex of self but
> > indicating the total inferiority of self to (my) self and which is
> the
> > only “other.” On the other hand, in the polarity of God and world
> > could also find the “other” as God so that self and God are
> identified
> > as one and the same. In either case the self (being) in its daseinic
> > desperation inflates itself (hybris) with either God or World, Pappa
> > Divine or Mamma Natura, and by which work on (my-self) is precluded.
> I
This reminds me of Rorty’s saying that “Nietzsche had no life outside
literature” and similar sayings about other top philosophers. I think these
only prove that Rorty had an inferiority complex which he tried to
compensate.
Coming back to what we discussed previously, I have to say that C.G. Jung is
a panpsychist in respect to knowledge theory, not in respect to ontology.
> ME: Lord save us from such psychological constructs. What you propose
> is the truly empty abstraction of “I = I”, the starting point of
> Fichtean philosophy. But whereas Fichte is a thinker, a psychological
> thinking that criticizes “mentalistic thinking” (BXB) ends only in
> mindless thinking. Already the deep dialectic of Plato’s _Parmenides_
> and _Sophitaes_ shows that self (_to auto_) cannot be thought without
> the other (_to heteron_). But who today would bother with such
> intricacy of thinking through the elementary categories from which the
> world is made?
>
> Only the uneducated thoughtlessly employ the term ‘abstraction’
> polemically.
Who said this: “Is not such a subject a fanciful idealization?”
Now, idealization, in this respect, it is about abstracting, namely reducing
all human beings of flesh and blood to the abstract concept of “subject”.
Greetings,
Tudor
