Subject: Re: Numbers Game Question
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:44:15 -0800


Anthony wrote:

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).

John here,

actually this is not what Hiedegger has stated in his
writings. Ontological refers to the logos (logical
discussion through critical analysis of phenomenon what is
ultimately real). The Being of beings may be understood in
different ways: as God, as the Light of God, as the Ultimate
Reality, et cetera, or simply as what presents in
phenomenon. The ontic is still fundamentally defined as a
'relationship' dependent on the subject. Phenomenology
essentially is a form of 'seeing'.

Object, concept and essence are interchangble terms for the
same thing: "being in itself" versus "being for another".
Heidegger quotes Hegel on this:

"It is evident that the two cases are the same. But the
essential point to retain throughout the whole investigation
is that these two moments, concept and object,
being-for-another and being-in-itself both fall within that
knowledge which we are investigating. Consequently, we do
not need to import standards, or to make use of our ideas
and thoughts during the investigation; it is precisely when
we let these go that we succeed in contemplating the subject
matter as it is in and for itself."

Heidegger on the phenomenological attitude:

"We let our ideas and thoughts go: we who know absolutely do
not become so by taking up and taking on what is one-sided
or what has been omitted. Rather, we will know absolutely
when we let go. *Basically, we know absolutely already and
have already let go what is ours in the sense of what is
relative to human beings*." [Sense Certainty and Immediacy
[71-72], Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit].

This approach appears much like 'induction' also a
scientific attitude....but not identical.


chao

john foster




>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 ---




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