On Thursday, April 1, 2004, at 01:47 PM, bob scheetz wrote:
Malcolm,
are all world-as-will's created equal?
You mean this world we live in and know as such? It would be equal to
itself. On the other hand not all world views are equal...
Then indeed there's the will to construct lies like the bush-nazis to
justify aggression, which is properly called will to power
I wouldn't say will to power is about lying although lies can empower a
geopolitical strategy, especially if you want to break international
law without upsetting your constituents too much. Goebbels had a
general policy early on about only using the truth as propaganda as
actual lies have a tendency to be found out by your enemies. 'Spin' is
not about bald faced lies so much as using the truth to conceal facts
and manipulate mass opinion, but the Bush admin is remarkably ham
fisted in its use of propaganda, for many of us it appeared to be just
outright lies from the beginning yes? Their strategy has polled well up
to now and it remains to be seen whether they make it through the
election and if not whether they're prepared to give up power. If they
really want to push the Nazi/Roman angle then some sort of new post 911
Pearl Harbour is needed that lawfully allows for a dissolution of
constitutional rule in favour of martial law. How else are you going to
be able to implement a Pax Americana? These neocons talk big about
total war, global domination and suchlike but can they walk the walk?
Even then will to power is about a self-conscious relation to truth as
one's own truths and although politics is largely about lying or 'spin'
I see no reason why one can't have a good old fashioned honestly
truthful will to power. The words of Jesus or Buddha are will to power
as a genuine quest for truth and unconcealment over against evil. As
you suggest:
But then there's the will to valorize being, called morality, ...to
construct a truth to adequate the wonder of existence, called
myth/metafisics/theology/ontology ...and, to synthesize meaning out of
intellect, affect and absurdity, called art. which latter group seem
as
much transcending the subject and his will. the great (as opposed to
petit
bourgeois critical notions of them) traditions of heroism, religion,
and
artistic creation are mystical, dissavowing any component of
subjectivity or
volition, ...and opposite of occluding, are universally considered
clarifying, ...heid's sumum desideratum, no?
I don't know how you'd go about disavowing subjectivity, I think it's
more a matter of understanding one's own subjective relation to
subjective truth. If all one's truths are one's own then where does
one's own truth originate? In the 'sensuous' as the strife between
world understanding and earth? What's the provenance of one's own
willful truths? That's where the question of being comes in, Nietzsche
almost had it but got stuck on will.
it just seems like distinctions should be made, differences accorded
preeminence? ...intstead of what appears the flattening essentialising
of
will-to-will? ...identification of lies, cowardice and horror with
truth,
heroism, the-holy.
A heroic, holy will to will? Why not? Will to will is essentially
amoral and pragmatic, it's not evil as such but it can certainly lead
to evil acts and good ones as well. As the constant empowering of one
will's truth over another it is dominated by the will to will order for
the sake of order, which isn't necessarily bad. In fact order is good,
without it we'd have no civilisation, no humanity as we know it. I
think the difficulties arise when it comes to fighting over what that
order should be, who benefits and who suffers. Is your politics
'progressive' or 'conservative' (if these distinctions mean anything
anymore), or is it socially minded or self interested, christian in a
gospels sense or more Deuteronomy, for the good of all beings or only
one's own and so on?
If I sound pessimistic it's only because I'm trying to follow the
trajectory of Heidegger's critique of will to will which was a critique
of a particularly grotesque historical manifestation of it. Nazism was
an extreme example of where will to will can take us but it's
Heidegger's contention that it's the mechanics of the will to will,
it's self-conscious relation to truth and its subsequent
groundlessness, that underlies all modern world views. If you take that
on board then you accept the moment of decision in which one's will is
constantly enacted in the world. Shall our will to will order be guided
by an openness to possibilities that empower humanity as a whole and
the biosphere that shelters it for generations to come or should we
just accept that short term goals are the actual reality now and for
the future no matter what suffering that entails?
It's a cliche but I really do think we're ignorant enough to keep
destroying everything around us til there's nothing left, and that's
just the nature of machination, always has been so why should us
moderns be any different?
Cheers,
Malcolm
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
