Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:05:57 +0000
Subject: Re: gulf


> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3130938358_1304508_MIME_Part

Anthony 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.

Ok, then I shall stop using the word "peace" in speaking of the more
essential not taking the side of taking of no sides... but, I did say the
not taking of the side of (not taking sides), did I not? Thus what I am
approaching is not a side, and, it is this I have been referring to as
"peace", the being of peace and the peace of being. How, Anthony, can the
not taking of sides (and not taking this as a side to be taken) be
conflictual or warlike? If so, how?

>> 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?

I think, with your help, that I mean something like the idea that what I
have referred to as "peace" is akin to (an ikon of) be-ing itself, and that
responsible speech about anything (including the topics of war and peace as
they are normally understood) ought (in the Platonic sense of looking
upwards towards the good) be guided and safeguarded by be-ing, and thus (in
this instance whereupon I am attempting to think "peace" as I have tried to
display it in terms of the not taking of sides etc, as an ikon of be-ing) by
"peace" (which for me as I have tried to show, indeed define, cannot be a
side, not even a side for peace, not even a side against war). What I am
trying to approach is not a way of being-in-the-world so much as a way of
ways that they might be the ways they are in their bewaying... including the
ways of war and peace. Obviously, I am using the word "peace" in a way not
commensurate with the ordinarily meant term, peace, although it is somehow
related. I do not mean something like the absence of conflict but rather,
the absence of what it takes to be conflictual in the first place (you see I
am developing this as I go along since it seems more like a way than a
position) -- sides (whether opposing or no); when sides dissolve what
remains? a river without banks, a coin without heads or tails... a sight
without a see-er or seen?

peace

michaelP 

--MS_Mac_OE_3130938358_1304508_MIME_Part

HTML VERSION:

>>> 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?