Subject: Re: gulf
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:01:31 +0000


michaelP wrote:

> > The "no-taking of no-sides" to which you refer cannot possibly be
> > "non-conflictual" or "peaceful," because peaceful non-conflict is 
>precisely
> > one possible "side." So the "no-taking of no-sides" is not a factical
> > possibility, but rather is the possibility of any facticity (including 
>war).
>
>Of course, you're perfectly correct that in making any such statement as
>"the non-conflictual no-taking of no-sides that would be the being a-side" 
>I
>am at least appearing to take the side of taking no sides.

No that's not what I was saying. I was not objecting to the "no-taking of 
no-sides." What I was objecting to was your characterization of the 
"no-taking of no-sides" as "peaceful" and "non-conflictual," because 
peaceful non-conflict is a side, not the "no-taking of no-sides." So the 
"no-taking of no-sides" is neither peaceful and non-conflictual, nor 
warlike.

But, and
>hopefully not appearing to be as pretentious as I actually am here, I am
>attempting to approach a nearness with a dispatch from a peaceful 'region'
>or better, 'regioning'. That essentially war must needs have a provenance 
>in
>the taking of sides, and if something like peace means the essential (not a
>simple happenstance or accidence) absence of something like war, then peace
>(not a simple ontic happenstance of what is called 'peaceful' or a state of
>peace breaking out, etc) can only emanate from a not-taking-sides.

If "peaceful" is not a simple ontic happenstance of peace or a state of 
peace breaking out, how is it a factical possibility at all? If you are 
referring to the ontological level, then that is fine, but then you cannot 
characterize it as peaceful and non-conflictual, because it is neither these 
nor warlike, since both of these are possible ways of being-in-the-world.

>Moreover,
>it also implies the not taking the side of not taking sides too... Whilst
>this ontic position might well be ontically impossible for a human to rest
>or stand in, it does provide a direction and horizon for peace to be 
>thought
>from. My use of the term "ontic" (and its cognates) should also provide a
>clumsy clue as to the attempted (though wholly unsuccessful and perhaps
>impossible) nature of my linguistic aspiration (in the same sense that
>Plato's teaching sought to orient thoughtful human being not this way or
>that way (doxa) but upwards (the good)). I am asking that we be guided by
>the non-taking-of-sides (and by not taking that non-taking as a side to be
>taken) in the thinking of the business of war and peace, and, see what
>emanates, flows, comes forth from such a 'peace' as I am professing (as a
>horizon, not a position). I am also aware of how preposterous this sounds
>(but is it more preposterous than the coming violence?).

Well, yes it is, if it is indeed "ontically impossible for a human to rest 
or stand in" this. The ontic can provide a "direction" to the ontological, 
but the ontological can be neither peaceful and non-conflictual, nor 
warlike, precisely because BOTH of these are ways of being-in-the-world. So 
the "peace" here is neither an ontical possibility, nor ontological, so - 
what do you mean?

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online  
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---