Re: [ejlist] The GNR-Threat

Hello Rene,

You wrote:

>Science doesn't think, Heidegger says. I don't agree with everything in the
>article, but scientists becoming aware, that something is fundamentally
>wrong, is an interesting phenomenon. But H. seems to say (only a god ...)
>that it's not
>in the power of man alone.

>Juenger wrote in the fifties the "SF"-story "Glass bees".
>A couple of years before he died, he wrote "Prognoses", on the occasion of
>the Venice biennale  (..."thought-provoking").
>He predicts one more titanic century, but then the gods will return. They
>were not dead, just retreated. (the Greek, or
>the Edda way)
--

Yes, all this technology in the hands of all too human human's portends
toward the dire extreme. But since there is no evidence of a god, who
nevertheless is needed now as never before, we are left to our own
resources to deal with this threat. All the gods anyway use as their hammer
the coercive model, the threat of hell, the model taken for our current
governance. In what you quote above, to my mind there is only one possible
real nonimaginary solution within our grasp, a single commander who is
human, but.

But this commander cannot command the man who is present today. There must
be a fundamental shift in each individual's perspective on who he is, a
changing into 'what' he is, as beneath this subject there lies a force that
must rise to the fore and change what leads it now, a subject who is
subject to, into something more basic, who is subject to nothing save
necessity, a sovereign amongst sovereigns, and to now go back, wiser for
the experience, to that elemental thing they are beneath this artificial
subject construct. They need to be commanded without exterior threat, to be
so related to the commander that in a way the commander's commands are all
issued by and from themselves, not from a separate big chief in the Capitol
City. The commander is only the one who coordinates and guides the force
through all these technology produced minefields. And when he says not to
step this way or that, we follow this command exactly, not from fear of
coercive penalty but because we know the parcel force we all are might
disappear, our promise lost to existence.

This force is already diminished with its lemminglike instinct, as this
sanction by the gods to multiply and replenish the earth has reached
absurdity. No one saw this better than Nietzsche, "this earth has a skin
and this skin has a disease and this disease is called man."

As Camus points out, all revolutions are against the gods. The gods were
all real/metaphoric concepts essential to the primitive mind just awakening
to reflective becoming. Now they have 'become' becomings biggest threat,
because they individualize on the model of such absurd concepts as their
kind of free will, I mean the one that begins by saying you are free to do
exactly what I say or burn in hell. Sartre's, 'The Flies' exemplifies this
absurdity.

Heidegger might be right, as it may not be within our power to persuade a
return to becoming inwardly conscious of the basic force we are and then
perform from that center, but it is within our power to point to this
return as the one necessity that can save us. To act only in the best
interest of this concert force, not in the best interest of the broken up
individual units that drive each manifestation of this force, the sex
drive, the hunger drive, the lust for an individual micro raw blinded power
that when achieved is impotent toward forestalling the accumulated macro
plunge toward its own extinction.

Anyway, Rene, thanks for engaging. The range of emotion in reimparting
decades of ponder on these things has been emotionally exhausting. I also
live this xforce daily as an oddity among philistines, exceptionally nice
ones but whose only thought is power and only as represented in the
pictures and numbers on paper bills. My raison d'etre in their view is to
increase these for them and, since I need to keep the rain out of my
computer, even perhaps to eat once in awhile, I haven't time right now to
do more than hammer out these few flows of thoughts that would be better
toned if I had time to refine them ("make them briefer"), or to think your
points through deeper and restate some of my responses, so forgive the weak
spots in what must seem overly effusive rhetoric.

Rushed,

- k





     --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---