I think we covered this topic well recently. I argued that the UN has an
ontological structure which resembles if not exemplies true being with
others (as a standing in for others who are weaker, but necessarily wiser).
There is a deficiency in the amount of 'inferential wisdom' within the laws
and rules governing the UN. This is because the UN is not involved in
'toppling' sovereign states. It would be a transgression of humanitarian
mitsein for the UN to engage in the death and destruction of innocent
persons and their property, and that is precisely why most countries except
the UK and Australia were actively involved in the recent war against Iraq.
I am assuming that the mandate of the UN is to protect life, not endanger it
or take sides with those who chose to endanger and risk life.
The US was wrong to act unilaterally by using force against Iraq. This was
not a just war, but rather an unclear war. Incidentally I find it
interesting that no Al Q cells were located in Bhagdad, despite that fact
that most of the death and destruction occurred there. There is a distinct
anti-christian theme to the Bush Administration in that it appears to be
that it is not okay to attack the US for any reason, but it is always okay
to attack those other nations with any means possible.
It distinctly says in the OT that "thou shalt not kill" and it distinctly
says in the NT to "love thine enemies"....But the problem here is that Iraq
did not attack the US, nor did any innocent persons killed in Iraq since;
despite that over 100,000 citizens of Iraq have been killed by the US. The
sole justification recently for the US attacking Iraq was based on a
suscpicion, and a belief. There were no facts presented by the US which
would have supported a just war. Like Rene recently wrote this is not the
first time that the US has changed clients in its sphere of influence as a
means to possibly protect it's oil and strategic interests, afterall I have
seen too many photos of Saddam Hussein shaking the hands of Donald Rumsfeld
to often on world media outlets. When are people, the remaining few in the
US, going to accept that the Bush-Rumsfeld-Chaney-Blair quaternity are mass
murderers.
Now the Bush administration is asking Congress to provide a $87 billion
handout of taxpayer money to continue it's work in Afghanistan and in
Iraq...This will burst the pot and by the time it is all over - unlikely
ever unless the UN is directly involved - it will cost the US taxpayer not
billions but trillions (funds best spend on education, research, health and
the environment).
Looks too grim to feel any hope....
But there are some legal challenges ahead for the present Bush
administration which may cause some positive change...
jhn foster
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker@xxxxxx>
To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 7:44 AM
Subject: RE: SHOW ME THE TEXT - was Essence of Modern Technolgy
>
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Anthony Crifasi [
mailto:crifasi@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Verzonden: woensdag 8 oktober 2003 16:26
> Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Onderwerp: RE: SHOW ME THE TEXT - was Essence of Modern Technolgy
>
>
> Rene de Bakker wrote:
>
> >Ok, I would like you to show how this follows from Heidegger's
fundamental
> >ontology.
> >
> > It does NOT. I tried to explain to you that after BT something
> >revolutionary
> > happens. What ground itself is, is going to be the question. GA26 and
> >the
> > death of Scheler.
>
> Give me that text. What work is it? Or can you post it?
>
>
> Which one? Couple of days I named again: Vom Wesen des Grundes
> (Malik: the first small book of the philosophers of the future).
> The essence of ground: (as) what ground *is*.
> Or mean GA26? I've written kilometers on it here! The GA on Leibniz
> (1st pt), and on onticity (remember?), the strange review on BT,
> intentionality and freedom.
> GA26 and "The essence of ground" are to be read together.
> "The essence of ground" and "What is METAphysics" are to be read
> together.
> Then: GA29/30: here is the beginning of the Kehre. Still ambiguous,
> but that can't be else. The 'revolutionary' article of van Dijk -
> recognized as such by Coriando and now by all Freiburg - , is on
> GA29/30, but it's quite difficult. First read Oudemans article
> "Heidegger's 'logical investigations'" (and: "Reading against the
grain")
> on the period before 1929.
>
> how come so benommen? the Guinness?
>
>
>
>
>
> > With a specific text concerning technology, please. Because I
> >highly suspect that you are going to make precisely the same mistake that
> >John Foster made a long time ago with his ontic readings of every other
> >term
> >in SuZ, such as anxiety.
> >
> > I understand your fear. You can notice, reading back, that I don't do
> >that.
>
> On the contrary, you were one who originally tried to associate mitsein
with
> some ontic being-together like the UN.
>
> no no... GA26 on onticity.
>
> regards
>
>
>
> Anthony Crifasi
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
