Heidegger

In a message dated 7/13/2008 6:13:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
tgeorgescu at home.nl writes:

> What kind of person uses a faith or knowledge of God as a “safeguard.”

A politically minded person.

> But of course, someone who is limited to ontic object fixations. More
> importantly the Old Testament, as does Aristotle, must begin with an
> ontological reality: of non-being as potentia for beings to come and
> hardly with the gobbly gook of Heidegger”s verbal stammering.

Potentia is part of being, it is not non-being. Potentia is not ek-sistence,
but it is being.

> It is
> thus not surprising that Aristole’s prima materia corresponds with the
> Biblical First Day of creation simply because in either case an
> ontological rather than ontic premise transcended a notion of
> causality. The same was true for Anaximander’s apieron (The Boundless)
> from which Aristotle drew his notion of ousia as nothing ontic or
> material. Plato indicates as much in his Timaeus with regard for
> “space” or “place” as chora (xwpa), receptacle as “without previous
> impress.” This stood in contrast to space as topos and conceived in
> ontic measure. The important thing in all cases was that the
> ontological reality and the ontic actuality were not held as mutually
> exclusive but one the necessary correlate of the other. But no sooner
> violate this rule than ontology, as is the case today with its
> underpinnings in phenomenolgy, becomes an ideological doctrine and
> which is the only reason that Heidegger’s notion of dasein corresponds
> with the Nazi purification of beings in the world through mass
> slaughter.

What he says is that such purification has its ground in the metaphysics of
subjectivity, which has its roots in the thinking errors committed by
ancient thinkers and, later, by medieval and modern thinkers.

Anyway, dr. A.C.L. Zwaan said that no time and no place were spared of
having genocides, therefore ontology is irrelevant in this respect. E.g.,
the genocide in Rwanda was done without much ontological talk. “Hutu good,
Tootsie bad, kill the cockroaches!” — this was the ideology behind it.
Well, it was driven by historical hate, seen that the Tootsies were the
inhabitant elite, privileged by the colonial oppressor. A character in Hotel
Rwanda says that the racial differentiation between Hutus and Tootsies was a
Belgian concoction, because the Belgians were eager to recruit trustworthy
Quislings, and they have done that by inventing a racial classification.

> The telos in either case is to achieve union with non-being
> and its unmarked state of pure potentia and which I refer to in one of
> my works as “the final perfection:” that is to say thanatos as of the
> purist and undefiled state of non being. Unfortuately, the Nazi qua
> Nietzsche reified such final perfection as the superman who is dead but
> doesn’t know it.

The Nazis wanted the world for themselves, not for the Nothingness. They
loved existence and beings, as long as they played by their own rules. By
their own definition, a Jew could not play by such rules.

Greetings,

Tudor
Dear Tudor;
“Nothingness” is the state abreviated as Thanatos and which was the Nazi as
well as the Hedeggerian telos. The Jews, unlike the modern day suicidal
terrorists of Jihad, do not and never did seek finality in the final perfection of
nihil in potentia. To say that the Nazi “loved existence and being” is true,
providing “love” means exterminaton. The Nazi final perfection and which
coresponds to their final solution had built into it a planned finality, an apocalypse
without revelation or death for death’s sake. And that is where Heidegger
fits in– in the beginning– and which amounts to dasein for its own sake sans
human Beings.
Bernard

Posted on Sunday, July 20th, 2008 at 6:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback