Heidegger

Cologne 07-Aug-2006

ME: For my part, as someone who’s been trying to think through social and political
power ontologicaly for some time, I’ve provided more than enough philosophical leads
to this list over the past couple of years, only either to be ignored or dismissed
out of hand on the basis of ontic-political-moral prejudice. Not the slightest trace
of a philosophical Auseinandersetzung. So I have been quiet here, occasionally
looking at what’s posted, and shaking my head.

This would seem to indicate that the dimension of political being itself remains in
withdrawal — more deeply than other faces of being, and that has everything to do
with the predicament of human being — that we still do not know _who_ we _are_, but
pretend to be who we are _not_. Although we are thoroughly familiar with them, we
are unable to see the phenomena of social and political power _as such_, for they
are too close. Instead of seeing them for what they are, we see only what ought to
be (in our firmly held convictions, etc.). Ought eclipses the Is and forces it into
latent obscurity. Moralism takes over, and we are immersed, not in a moral
blindness, but in the blindness of morality itself, in whose light the world
appears.

Anyone attempting to lift this blindness through questioning is immediately cast as
immoral, as unacceptable in one way or another, as reprehensible, as morally beyond
the pale, as unjust, as a nihilist, etc. The who-stand of the questioner must be
annihilated in the name of morality. Thus do people save their identity, their sense
of _who_ they are as where they belong, in a casting of how the world should be,
setting themselves up (self-righteously, etc.) in a world of ought-to-be as the one
to which they belong. All else remains incomprehensible and morally repugnant.

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

michaelP schrieb Mon, 07 Aug 2006 07:45:50 +0100:

> BobG:
> > Hello MichaelP,
> >
> > Dunno if you remember my appeals to the list a couple’ve two three years
> > ago largely based on your arguments (idle chatter, opinion, reports v
> > philosophy) of course not nearly as elegantly made as you make them but
> > roughly the same and, of course, they made no difference .. and altho I
> > genuinely wish that your efforts will be more successful, I highly doubt
> > it,,,,sadly,,,,I took the time to checkout the urls that Malcolm provides
> > and it is now more clear than ever that there is nothing but dug-in
> > political heels here. I mean that was already clear but now it is stark, naked
> CLEAR.
>
> Hi Bob, yes I remember (and I’ve raised this several times); I’m not
> bothered by the opinions and outrages themselves, or even their
> well-worn-ness and restriction, but the very fact of them (thatness not
> whatness) in their bold exclusion of even an inkling of philosophical
> discourse. Used as a divertimento or prelude to thinking, fine, but on their
> own…
>
> BobG:
> > Is there a plan B?
> >
> > ..I mean, I love the philosophy that does sneak in every once in a while,
> > now and again,,,,uhmmm,,,,perhaps it truly is as simple as knowing the
> > score and moving on ,,, I almost want to simply ask if we are adults that
> > can know we have different political views and set them aside if not
> > totally then for the most part …
>
> Perhaps the only plan B is to begin a discussion, a philosophical
> discussion, on the problematic relation of thinking (not mere cogitating,
> opinionating, reporting of views, outraged expression, etc) to currency (the
> be-ing of contemporary events and their eventualising, etc). This could both
> side-step and include those writings that merely aspire to righteous
> journalisms, and those recent (on this list) ‘writings’ that merely enable,
> silently (i.e., nothing *said* or even spoken!) two websited fragments
> (pictures of graphs if I remember correctly) to stare at each other like
> those loudspeakers on either side of some disputed (Chinese? Korean?) border
> issuing forth canned messages with no-one actually present to hear them…
> is this what thinkerly discussion has become?
>
> Otherwise back to music&sex.
>
> regards
>
> michaelP
>
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> >>From: michaelP
> >>Date: 2006/08/06 Sun AM 10:08:47 CDT
> >>To:
> > Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
>
> >>Subject: Re: amadeus absconditus
> >
> >>>> Rene:
> >>>> > Well i’ll wait here, till you, rational beings, are able to respond.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > but let it be said that unability to do so, shows. - that is another
> >>> side
> >>>> > of the name-less: that also denial and stubborn Eigensinn have no
> >>>> > place to hide from it. So as long as nobody responds you are all,
> >>>> > except Jud maybe, striking yourselves out. I would advise to take that
> >>>> > seriously, but you are free (eh!) to do so. Cosi fan tutte!
> >>>> BobS:
> >>>> > rene,
> >>>> > In these frantic days of precision slaughtering refugee women and
> >>>> > babies, how can any topic else have standing? instead of obsessively
> >>>> > playing the desparate suffering of the victims of his gangster gov’t, as
> >>> he
> >>>> > ought, the pianoplayer is sounding false notes of mozartian whimsy.
> >>
> >>
> >>michaelP:
> >>>> Well, precisely sex and music (when they’re good, that is) are the best
> >>>> antidotes to your “precision slaughtering refugee women and babies”, etc,
> >>>> when no real philosophy is allowed to show itself in the righteous barrage
> >>>> of opinions and outrage.
> >>
> >>BobS:
> >>> so the pt of art and phil is escape from reality?
> >>
> >>No, Bob, not at all: I said that art and sex are antidotes (hygeinic,
> >>necessary for being healthy enough to face stuff) not an escape, and that
> >>such antidoting is useful in the *absence* of actual philosophical discourse
> >>on the horror (or whatever occupies currency, currently), and that righteous
> >>opinionating and reportage by themselves do not constitute philosophical
> >>discourse (and this is a philosophy discussion list, n’est pas?).
> >>
> >>michaelP:
> >>>>This is a question (that of the relationship
> >>>> between philosophical discourse and so-called current events where such
> >>>> discourse is not covered by or dominated by mere opinion and journalistic
> >>>> reportage but seeks to move beyond such perspectivalisms…) I have raised
> >>> a
> >>>> number of times, to almost utter silence: I’m not really bothered, but it
> >>>> seems to me that vocal list members would prefer to engage and express
> >>> their
> >>>> banal outrage (etc) rather than embrace the slightest inkling of
> >>>> philosophical reflection regarding such (horrendous) events. It’s
> >>> Heidegger
> >>>> Absconditus, it seems to me.
> >>
> >>BobS:
> >>> true, heid did try to purge reality, mitsein, from his thinking. you find
> >>> that a thing to emulate?
> >>
> >>Again, Bob, not at all, what I said was: this list, insofar as it *merely*
> >>expresses outrage and opinion re current events, approximates the absconding
> >>of Heideggerian thinking as I understand it. I wanna see some Heideggerian
> >>thinking of current horrors and pleasures. I think you’ve missed an
> >>opportunity to engage with my quest by moving into a softly attacking mode.
> >>
> >>michaelP:
> >>>> One could do a lot worse than reflect on the nature of some of the terms
> >>>> being bandied about (without thought), e.g., stealing land, victim, racism
> >>> &
> >>>> race, indigenous people, slaughter, war, etc, rather than continue in
> >>>> thoughtless position-swapping.
> >>
> >>BobS:
> >>> i agree philosophy has to find its universe in the stupendous mitsein of its
> >>> time which you above contemptuously term journalism, so which is it?
> >>
> >>Philosophy is never journalism (and however stupendously prevalent
> >>world-wide idle chatter has become, philosophy, in thinking the current,
> >>should not itself repeat the ubiquitousness of journalism) but repetition of
> >>well-worn views on this and that, etc, can well approximate journalism (even
> >>tabloidal haemorrhaging). I am using the term ‘journalism’ to mean
> >>unthinking reportage, expression of impressions (without properly thinking
> >>{in Heideggerian terms, that is; I don’t mean the absence of cogitation})
> >>and so on. Such are fine if only a prelude to the real philosophical
> >>symphony or fugue, but by themselves they are just cries of outrage or
> >>support of whatever, or anger or righteous indignation, etc, and however
> >>interesting they might be, they are not philosophy.
> >>
> >>Gimme (philosophical) shelter! {from what one reads in the papers, watches
> >>on the chattering box, captures in the stuttering gossip of the net, etc,
> >>every shagging day}.
> >>
> >>regards
> >>
> >>michaelP
> >>
> >>>> Give me the joyful pianoplayer rather than the righteous plaintiff anyday.

Posted on Monday, August 7th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback