terror and error
June 3rd, 2006, search relatedRelated posts :: terror and error :: terror and error :: terror and error :: terror and error
Tags: terror
> — michaelP wrote:
>> Yes, but I should like to suggest that terror is other than the inane
>> production of the idiot box and the newspapers, etc; if noise (media, common
>> understandings, sabre rattlings of politicos, etc) be noise(y) then it is
>> not terror as such unless noise itself is terror too… I want to think
>> terror filtered out from the noisy background as some kind of signal, sign,
>> something significant in its standing out precisely from the noisy nonsense
>> of the noisome machinations of the media et al. As much as asking for the
>> essence of terror I ask for the terrorising of essence…
Pete:
> Heidegger appears to feel that terror is something that must be dealt
> with; i.e. avoiding it would be inauthentic.
>
> “So the man that truly knows is not the one who blindly runs
> after a truth but only the one who constantly knows all three
> way, that of Being, that on non-Being, and that of seeming.
> Superior knowing–and all knowing is superiority–is granted
> only to one who has experienced the sweeping storm on the way
> of Being, to whom the terror of the second way to the abyss
> of Nothing has not remained foreign, and who has still taken
> over the third, the way of seeming, as a constant urgency.”
> IM, 120
>
> So to summarize, don’t seek shelter from the storm. Get wet.
> If you won’t risk getting hit by lightning, you ain’t goin’
> nowhere.
So, Pete, briefly, given Heidegger’s take on Parmenides three ways, it would
seem that in order to think terror one must not flinch from being terrorised
by such a thinking, that the path of the seeming urgency of terror (the
error of terror) should be viewed as itself a necessory terrorism to be
borne?
regards
michaelP
