Subject: Re: Numbers Game Question
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:01:11 +0000


Malcolm Riddoch wrote:

>I still really don't know what you are talking about with your 
>ontic/ontological distinctions, and I have a feeling that you don't know 
>either.

Likewise, vice versa. Ontic means having to do with beings within the world 
(factical things, events, groups, etc.) Ontological means having to do with 
the Being of beings (the phenomenological structure of being-in-the-world).

>This isn't rhetoric, it's a simple statement of fact. World and especially 
>British public opinion forced the Bush regime into going to the UN to ask 
>for an authorisation for this current campaign. The hawks didn't need it 
>but Blair certainly did.
>
>That something like a global das Man exists is a testament to global 
>cybernetics, that there is a certain uncontrollability in the dissemination 
>of information apart from government controlled propaganda and that this 
>dissidence crosses national boundaries and languages. This 'das Man' is 
>largely being expressed in global protests against war as a political tool, 
>and here you are Anthony taking part in it by debating on the internet as 
>the missiles rain down on Baghdad.

Yes I agree - the They permeates "me" as much as "you" as much as "public 
opinion" as much as the protestors. In other words, the They is not (in this 
case or any other case) limited to any one side, like the anti-war side. The 
They pervades everything from the most global agreements to our most 
solitary defiant "private" thoughts. So to characterize the current anti-war 
movement as the "They", as opposed to the other side, is simply a 
misinterpretation of what Heidegger means by the They. My opinion is no less 
the "They" than yours. It is precisely the same misinterpretation that John 
Foster made with mitsein.

>'Ontically' you oppose peace and support the facile justifications of 
>conservatives who for some reason prefer to believe, or be seen to believe, 
>that this Iraq campaign is literally a preemptive strike against a 
>terrorist threat.

Now who is painting things as black and white? That is such a simplistic 
exposition of the side you oppose. There are many reasons converging which 
make this a just war. The one you mention above is merely one. There is also 
Hussein's blatant violation of UN resolutions 687 and 1441. There is also 
the massive crimes against humanity which surpass what Milosevic did, and 
your "das Man" finally stopped Milosevic (without UN approval, I might add). 
There is the loud and clear warning from the North Korean situation.

>As an 'ontical' whole though (and I really think this is a ridiculous 
>overuse of the ontic/ontological distinction) das Man, which we are all 
>together, is looking up from its absorption in work and its endless 
>capacity for tranquilization in curious novelties, and sees death on the 
>horizon in the form of yet more war, terror, disruption and suffering.

You left out the implicit ethical evaluation that all that makes the war 
unjustified. That evaluation is no less das Man too. As is the opposite 
evaluation, that they are not enough to make the war unjustified. Both are 
equally pervaded by the They. To limit the They to one side only is a 
blatant misinterpretation of Heidegger.

>These are serious issues, ethical and moral issues, which are philosophical 
>issues, and I find your neo-conservatism both historically simplistic and 
>philosophically bankrupt.

because you have "philosophically" misunderstood the They by reducing it to 
something ontic, like the current majority world opinion. Opinions can be 
opposed to one another, but both sides are equally pervaded by the They, so 
no one side can possibly be exclusively the They.

>why do you even bother trying to justify what is obviously an amoral power 
>play to realign the current geopolitical order? And I don't mean this in 
>the sense that you should then condemn US intervention in the Middle East. 
>That is a black and white dualism that you seem to be buying into with your 
>ridiculously facile arguments about a connection between Hitler's attempt 
>to forge a new global order and some tin pot dictator in the middle east 
>who is so utterly powerless US troops can literally just walk in and take 
>over.

Note that your condemnation of my "facile arguments" comes without any 
addressal of those arguments themselves which I gave in my last reply to 
you. Nor have you addressed my reply that you made equally "black and white" 
dualistic accusations against the US bombing Laos, helping Hussein during 
the 80s, helping Afghanistan, etc. You need to do this before condemning my 
arguments for what has also been present in yours.

>Faced with this difficulty you just reiterate the same utterly tenuous 
>argument about an Iraqi link with al Qaeda and islamic extremism as somehow 
>meaning we need to preemptively destroy every untrustworthy regime in the 
>world.

If you have even been following this thread a little, I have done FAR more 
than that. I also mentioned UN resolutions 687 and 1441 (which you have not 
addressed yet). I also mentioned the North Korean parallel (which you have 
not addressed yet). I also mentioned the Milosevic parallel (which you have 
not addressed yet). So to cast what I have done as merely reiterating the 
same argument about an al Qaeda link clearly shows that you are not being 
the thinker here, especially when you did not even BOTHER to address the 
first part of my whole reply here.

Anthony Crifasi

>This is pretty lame stuff coming from someone who claims to be a 'thinker'.
>
>You don't have to parrot these superficial propaganda bytes in order to 
>justify your own belief in a US, British and Australian anglo-saxon crusade 
>against Islamic extremism. You don't have to justify anything anymore 
>because there is no justice or lack of justice, no good or evil, in the use 
>of global power. The Nazi's made this an explicit tenet of their own 
>indoctrination programs and foreign policy, and so did Stalin, consecutive 
>US administrations since at least Roosevelt, also the Romans, the Mongols 
>under Ghengis Khan, Imperial and communist China ... have you ever read the 
>Genealogy of Morals?
>
>Why not just accept that the US administration has declared a global war on 
>terror with the intent to realign the geopolitical order for this next 
>century, and without regard to notions of justice or morality except where 
>global and especially domestic public opinion is concerned? It's all 
>business, pure and explicit machination. Where do you think the doctrine of 
>overwhelming force came from? They have to wage war with a minimum of 
>casualties on either side and it has to be over quickly before public 
>opinion turns against them, as it did in the Vietnam war. The UN and all 
>the opposed nations combined are incapable of standing up to any US 
>aggression anywhere, but the US administration is still a democracy and 
>still has to play the political game with its own constituency. Thank god 
>no one voted to give Bush a constitutional dictatorship, and more power to 
>the global peace protests.
>
>If you get over your need to justify yourself maybe we can take this 
>discussion somewhere interesting, ever read Heidegger's Nietzsche volumes? 
>Maybe then we could even start to discuss the ethics and morality of all of 
>this machination, but at the moment your arguments are just too ... 
>everyman.


_________________________________________________________________
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 ---