On Sunday, April 11, 2004, at 12:20 AM, Anthony Crifasi wrote:
You clipped out the word "IF" above: "IF the Nazis WERE to be bombed
with a view to..."
And so we go around again to - how would you 'bomb with a view to
being'?
If it is a matter of power, then according to your own criterion for a
good act (i.e., one that tends to lead to openness, and extrapolating,
one that resists an increasing obliteration of openness with a view to
that openness), a matter for power CAN be good.
How would you 'bomb with a view to being' in order to overpower your
aggressor and secure your own salvation? Do you think there's an
authentic difference between self defence and aggression? Or is that
being 'selective'?
I'm not saying that the Islamic terrorists ARE doing this with a view
to that openness.
No, only that Islamic terrorists COULD do this with a view to that
openness. Which returns us once again to the question how would you
'bomb with a view to being' in order to terrorise your enemy? What does
this meaningless proposition actually mean for you? I'm interested to
know.
what "coming to terms with technology" means - not altering *behavior*
or *action*, but rethinking the BASIS of that action.
I find your proposition above that Heidegger's ontology has no
consequences for how we should act in the world both meaningless and
without any basis whatsoever in Heidegger's texts. On the contrary, I'd
say his interpretation of the world order in relation to his ontology
of openness requires a complete rethinking in the way we go about
setting up our global order. Heidegger put his money on the 'great
beginnings' of the German revolution led by his Fuehrer, personally I
think the democratic ideal and internationalism is more hopeful. But
then I don't trust the notion of a benign dictatorship whereas
Heidegger grew up in a southern German Catholic tradition with a poor
understanding of liberalism, democracy and Americanism. This is a
problem that Dr Eldred has been working through and with which I
largely agree. But then Heidegger did know about absolute
dictatorships, something we in the so called 'free' world might do well
to better understand. 'Old Europe' knows this all too well.
How we *comport* ourselves towards technology is not the same as
"directives that can be readily applied to our active lives". It is a
RETHINKING of technology, "and nothing else."
Now you're just using Burrough's cut up method to completely rework
Heidegger's text, it's an interesting writing method don't you think?
And so easy with computers but you do end up with a lot of gibberish.
How we *comport* ourselves towards technology is not the same as "the
thinking that ponders the truth of Being". This latter thinking
discloses the openness within which beings constantly come to presence
but is not itself first a theoretical representation, a RETHINKING of
technology nor a practical guide for action. It's simply disclosure as
such.
The RETHINKING of technology develops out of Heidegger's confrontation
with Nietzsche/Nazism. These are two distinct moments in Heidegger's
philosophy, the thinking of openness and its obliteration. For my part
I think Heidegger's phenomenological critique of Nazism has many
interesting lessons and "directives that can be readily applied to our
active lives".
And so we can both go on ad infinitum, together, as such is the
entangling structure of the will to will one's own truth as
self-certainty over against the others, which is also part of
Heidegger's RETHINKING of technology. Perhaps there's a lesson there
for your own theoretical comportment towards the problem concerning
technology.
But this isn't politics here, we're discussing philosophy and your
simplistic logic is driving you into complete and utter absurdity
Anthony.
I'd suggest you refrain from the unnecessarily condescending addendums
in your posts
I apologise if you find my comments unnecessarily condescending but I
do genuinely find your various arguments logically inconsistent,
fractured and increasingly absurd. I mean no personal insult, I'm just
trying to work through your reasoning. However, I think we'll just have
to agree to disagree again on this one and put it down to a fundamental
difference of interpretation. Or not.
Cheers,
Malcolm
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
