Heidegger

Very optimistic, Tudor. Me, i can’t imagine that the force which
has dissolved everything, will make it cohere again. That must be
the invisible trick of the hand of what kind of creature?
No, dissolution will go on, so much so, that we simply accept
the spreading of total war everywhere, as the fundament of a
new peace. But […]

> “This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots
> of them out there…. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and
> we embrace it entirely, and we don’t try to piece together clever
> diplomacy but just wage a total war, our children will sing […]

On 04/06/2006, at 11:52 AM, That Pete wrote:
>> In regards to this question then what about American anti-American
>> speech?
>
> I think it is fine for Americans to burn their own flag, as a symbol
> of some aspect of America they don’t like. I don’t think that’s
> anti-americanism.
>
> On the other hand I’ve never seen […]

________________________________
Van: heidegger-bounces at soca.ecu.edu.au namens Philip Baker
Verzonden: zo 4-6-2006 0:38
Aan: heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
Onderwerp: Re: terror and error
In article , That Pete writes
>— Philip Baker wrote:
>>
>> Isn’t H speaking here of some far deeper terror?
>
>Agreed. The terror of the error.
>
>> What is
>> labelled terrorism causes great suffering for a few but
>> overall causes a […]

— michaelP wrote:
> > 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
> > […]

> — 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 […]

On 03/06/2006, at 9:21 PM, michaelP wrote:
> hi malcom, before going any further let me add that I did say (wrt
> to prior thinking terror) we ought to discuss what terror is
> “without merely and only” providing illustrative examples (around
> which, it seems, there is initial disagreement and disjunction
> {e.g., whether the USA is […]

On 03/06/2006, at 6:10 PM, michaelP wrote:
Malcom asks:
> If anyone else on list or on the site would care to discuss the problem
of
> “terror”, pro or contra, please feel free to join in.
Malcom, the question of terrors and terrorisms (and of related errors and
errorisms) where we of necessity begin thinking these in the very middle […]

On 03/06/2006, at 6:10 PM, michaelP wrote:
> Malcom asks:
>
> > If anyone else on list or on the site would care to discuss the
> problem of
> > “terror”, pro or contra, please feel free to join in.
>
> Malcom, the question of terrors and terrorisms (and of related
> errors and errorisms) where we of necessity begin […]

Malcom asks:
> If anyone else on list or on the site would care to discuss the problem of
> “terror”, pro or contra, please feel free to join in.
Malcom, the question of terrors and terrorisms (and of related errors and
errorisms) where we of necessity begin thinking these in the very middle of
their topicalities and embrace […]