Heidegger

—–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
Van: heidegger-bounces at soca.ecu.edu.au
[mailto:heidegger-bounces@soca.ecu.edu.au]Namens Tudor Georgescu
Verzonden: zondag 25 juni 2006 10:40
Aan: ‘Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger’
Onderwerp: RE: Only technology can save us now …

Rene,

We can no longer decide if technology is to dominate, but we can decide how.
If you read Heidegger properly, worrying about technology is like worrying
about the fact that earth is (kind of) round.

Strauss tried to provide an answer to the question of political technology
(politics as employing scientific expertise, represented by Machiavelli) and
he promoted the view that as long politicians serve the cause of giving the
people the idols it wants, they can do just about anything. The arbitrary of
rulers is back into politics.

The same about global domination: we shouldn’t worry that one dominates the
world (though it would be preferable that two forces compete for world
domination), but we should worry about how this world domination is done.

Political domination is ok, but I will try to show that cultural imperialism
is nefarious. The democratic revolutionaries assume that “life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness” is good everywhere in the world.

While I was discussing the problems in Iraq with three simple people, they
reached the conclusion that the Iraqis cannot cope with democracy, and they
would be better off with an authoritarian ruler. So, the solution to the
post-Saddam chaos is another Saddam.

“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” do not work everywhere, for
they require an individualistic frame of mind. They require people to
cherish individualistic values and to understand to play by the rules of
individualistic competition.

But, the reality of the Eastern peoples is that they exist in kind of
being-in-collectivism. They (as peoples) cannot unlearn collectivism. They
are simply pre-wired for collectivism instead of being socialized into
collectivism.

And, the chaos produced by the neoconservatives has an obvious reason: at
one hand they are promoting the individualistic culture, free market,
freedom of speech in order to spread liberal democracy all around the world,
and on the other hand Straussianism is built upon a visceral hate of
whatever individualism is.

So, US spread individualism worldwide and try to combat it at home. From
this political confusion follow incoherent strategies. It is like in the old
anecdote, in a building company, team A is busy digging a ditch and team B
is busy un-digging it.

So, in the first place it should be made clear to everybody if individualism
is going to be followed, if yes, to what degree, and if no why the hell US
are busy exporting liberal democracy, when they no longer need it at home?

But, in the political confusion in the US, produced by the metaphysical
underdevelopment of its demos, this question cannot be competently answered.

And, the answer to this question is of fundamental importance. One cannot go
at the same time to the East and to the West. If one is to move at all,
he/she should first decide where he/she wants to go to. Otherwise, the work
of team A will be undone by team B, and those who don’t notice this will
keep asking why the problems are getting worse.

So, admitting that there is a solution for world’s problems, that solution
should be followed consequently and one should not try moving in two
directions at once.

“For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to
the battle?” 1 Corinthians 14:8

Greetings,

Tudor Georgescu

Thanks Tudor, for one more ride through the landscape of contradictions.
One can endlessly travel here, sociologically, politically etc., but that
is not what i am interested in.
It appears that contradiction points and keeps on pointing
to what, by all means, is to remain hidden: the ‘being’ of
the machinator: Dasein. Responsibility, litterally. Now, that
this is best done with help of this same notion Dasein, is one more
proof of how nihilism works: it hides in the self-evident, in MAKING
everything self-evident, questionless. In all the different stories,
transcendent, immanent, religious, atheist, striving for the good,
or for the bad, it is still Nietzsche who is victorious, but in a strange way,
so that also he disappears. He knew about that. The devastation by will to
power is so total that will to power itself is sacrified by lying. The strategy
of spreading exactly that, which one excludes oneself from: equality, freedom,
which just mean civil war, cannot found itself upon will to power itself, it is
too impotent and insincere to do so. And so the gods must do the job, significantly.
But they are truly silly superdogs, and in no way overmen.

The Greeks were very much aware of the possibility of the divine to change into
the black. Turn down love, and Aphrodite melaina, a black Aphrodite will be merciless.
That’s the way the divine protects itself against intruders, and there is only one
way to evade: acknowledge the gifts, and that means: to purchase the earth as the realm
of human living, and not burn it for heaven’s sake. Basically, he proposes to betray
one’s god. He speaks, in the notes to Empedokles, of “another, more real Zeus, who
coerces more decisively towards the earth.” We should bring ourselves into the position
where we can hear Hölderlin’s words, and in order to do that, Heidegger is there.

regards
rene

Posted on Monday, June 26th, 2006 at 10:25 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback