GEVANS613@xxxxxxx wrote:
Why do I keep taking the piss out of Slimeball Slybegger? Because he was a
silly ass, and his ideas are/were asinine, and silly asses deserve to have the
piss out of them simply for being silly asses and producing asinine rubbish.
Michael countered with:
And, Jud, what does all this pisstaking say about you who has not even
produced an atom of even asinine ideas of your own apart from the empty void of
no-name-al-ism and the jargonised oh-so-common-sense of your AITism and the
continuous display of less-than-an-inkling-of understanding-Heidegger in your
tabloidal haemorrhaging 'critiques'. Although your writing is sometimes funny enough
to produce a smile, and your obvious ability and encyclopaedick knowledge of
the 'literary' is occasionally impressive (as is the ability to write long and
effortlessly). I simply do not understand why you keep singing and singeing
the same old song, almost identically, for so many years. We now know for utter
certainty what you 'think' (in the sense of mere opinion) about the man and
his works: is it not about time you *said* some thing? You show no sense of
struggle with Heidegger's thinking, just your own doctrine is all we ever get,
but that is not thinking, it's just stating; the discourse with the other is
utterly missing even in the concrete discussions (you either agree or disagree,
either comradely or animose, you never go along with in order to show something
in the speech of the other, you just blow your obliteratingly loud trumpet
with no sense of the silence that is the prologue of genuine dialogue, never
listening, only hearing and re-acting, etc, etc). I feel you capable of so much
more, but something obsesses you, and, it sounds like blind hatred (of
Heidegger and philosophy itself), and that simply blinds and deafens you to anything
other
(than your dear self)).
Nuff said (and I'm sure of the blaring trumpet that will greet this post,
and, it looks like a full moon, so I'll ignore you, but needed to say this
exceedingly gentle version of what I feel)
Jud:
Rather than answer your points personally with the sort of stuff that I
always come up with in response to such criticism I will unusually attach something
which I came across on somebody else's website which that somebody else has
written about my website after a visit. I cannot resist making the point
however that I feel you capable of so much more, but something obsesses you, and, it
sounds like blind infatuation with the nazi Heidegger and that particular
brand of non-philosophy itself), and that simply blinds and deafens you to
anything other (than your dear self)). But of course dear Michael it wouldn't occur
to you for even one moment that there is another side to a coin - even YOUR
coin. Quite frankly as the writer of the following piece recognises - their is
simply no alternative on offer for an anti-Heideggerian, particularly if one
ventures into the 'lion's den' — or rather the parlour of arsenic and old lace
which is the Heidegger list. It is the only stance possible — the only viable
modus operandi. Perhaps you will recognise yourself in what follows - but sadly
...I doubt it.
Jud again:
Robin - if you are reading this I feel I should have asked your permission to
post what follows here first, but as your website is a public notice-board,
perhaps in the circumstances you will forgive me?
Your posting is so pertinent to the points raised by Michael - it is
understanable that I wished to include it as part of my reply.
Robin:
Jud Evans has an amusing site dedicated to taking the piss out of Martin
Heidegger. I particularly like his learned comparison of Heidegger's
onto-grammatological convolutions with the classic street-swindler's 3-cup shuffle. I
emailed Evans in appreciation after, browsing through the moribund Spoon
collective's Heidegger list, I saw his recent posts regarding Heidegger/Nazism. They
reminded me of several 'discussions' I have had in the past and the way in which
people who have invested a great deal of time getting into the labyrinthine
hall-of-mirrors of Heideggerian 'thought' just can't bring themselves to see the
truth. The more dangerous types are those who accept that Heidegger 'did some
stupid things' but cannot accept that his mode of thought is integrally
connected with his politics, that their convergence is not just accidental. This
duplicitousness is far stupider than simply sticking your head in the sand. What
interested me about the site is how dealing with these people Evans is driven
to the same strategies as I have been - namely, obnoxiousness, insult and
satire - as the only possibility. As soon as you try to argue in terms of their
blearily hallucinated ectoplasmic entities you've entered the game, and you're
lost. There are real 'philosophical problems' at stake, but the most important
one is the relationship of philosophical thought and the political, which you
cannot tackle from 'inside'. And that's the one Heidegger's followers don't
want to talk about. I related to Evans a funny udergraduate story from when I
started studying Heidegger, at the same time coming across the academic
catfight surrounding Richard Wolin's book The Heidegger Controversy, thus finding a
way into the Heidegger's 'other' life. Disturbed that first-year students were
being taught Heidegger without being exposed to the facts about where this
thought had led to, and having tried to no avail to raise this with several
Heideggerites, I was righteously indignant and felt compelled to direct action! A
quick Xeroxed poster campaign in the philosophy department later, I sat back to
watch what effect such a tewwibly unphilosophical act would have... Mostly,
sotto voce approval from staff and students of the deleuze/guattari/lyotard/etc
school, but also from some old-school tweedy types who regarded H not only as
a nazi but also as some sort of philosophical cad. But what shocked me was
the near-psychopathic reaction of some committed heideggerians. The truly
comical moment came when I was addressed by one such, who, not knowing that I was to
blame, started mouthing off about how she couldn't believe someone would do
such a thing, it was so childish and signalled a failure to appreciate H's
greatness. After listening for a few minutes I quietly admitted my culpability -
and she could hardly contain her rage (it was as if I had libelled a member of
her immediate family). Unbelievably, while not deigning to discuss any of the
facts about H, and refusing to see how teaching H as 'pure' philosophy
compounded the fault, the priestess repeatedly labelled me a 'fascist' - for putting
up cheaply photocopied posters in a philosophy department! as Jud says: "Wow!
What an experience ! Talk about Orwell's 1984."There's no point being
reasonable, never mind polite and philosophical, with people who are, after all,
members of a cult, one of whose articles of faith is that everything can - must -
be discussed s...... l...... o...... w...... l...... y in a quiet, profound
and religious manner. In the heidegger course I was attending, we had sat in
humble silence for weeks with the lecturer turgidly reciting spells from THE BIG
BOOK. After giving a paper consisting mostly of childish insults and sarcasm,
which afforded me much relief, I left the course. The paper I submitted
entitled 'Heidegger's Thaumaturgy' dealt with Heideggerian thought as essentially a
dangerous hypnotic con trick, although I wish now that I'd had access to
Evans' excellent material on the 3-cups trick. The lecturer who was teaching my
course later published a book in which the very first page is a plea that we
must put aside these political questions before we are able to ask real questions
relating to the greatness of H's thought. (Jud replies:"They always say that.
'Clear your mind of everything else and then approach Heidegger. It's a ploy
used in brainwashing. The Chinese used it with allied prisoners in the Korean
war. It's a classic feature of the methodology of recruitment for every sicko
cult that ever was.")Heidegger, like many others, wanted it both ways - to
keep thought pure, and to use it to drive history. The truth is the very opposite
of what the acolytes tell us: in fact, until we properly address the
political problem we will never properly understand the philosophical thought.
Approached with an eye to these realities, 'The Heidegger Problem' is indeed one of
the most interesting issues in the history of 20th century philosophy, but it's
just impossible and pointless to try to talk to those who are 'inside' - they
don't need reasoned argument, they need deprogramming. Posted by Robin at
December 15, 2003
01:18 PM
Cheers,
Jud.
<A HREF="
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ ">
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/</A>
Jud Evans - ANALYTICAL INDICANT THEORY.
<A HREF="
http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com";>
http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com</A>
Heidegger Cartoons:
<A HREF="
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/cartooncontents.htm";>
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/cartooncontents.htm</A>
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---