Subject: Re: gulf
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:12:46 +0000


michaelP wrote:

>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?

Take our ontological structure. It is not conflictual or warlike, because 
one way of being-in-the-world is being-peaceful. However, neither is it 
peaceful, because one way of being-in-the-world is being-conflictual and 
warlike. Now, if you want to use the word "peaceful" for this (the way 
Heidegger uses the words "anxiety" or "call" or "fallen" or "conscience" in 
an ontological way, as distinguished from their common ontic meanings), then 
that is fine, but then you can't call it a "third alternative" to peace and 
war. Our ontological structure, and the analysis thereof, is not any kind of 
"alternative" to any two (or three or whatever) ontic sides.

> > 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...

Well that's basically the same thing. If the way of ways is to be called 
"peaceful," and one of the wayS is war, then peace can be warlike and 
conflictual. That's fine as long as you keep straight your meanings, but 
it's an awkward choice of words, don't you think?

>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

Why the "absence" of what it takes to be conflictual, instead of precisely 
the possibility of being peaceful OR conflictual? If you just stick to 
"absence," then you will be left with nothing in either the ontic OR 
ontological sense. For example, for Heidegger, Dasein's essence is ONTICALLY 
"nothing" (i.e., no factical being), but that does not mean that it is 
nothing ontologically.

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



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