Subject: Deep Ecology ontic/ontological
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 07:44:20 +0000


John Foster wrote:

>Anthony,
>
>I am not sure if you understand what 'holistic' really
>means. It means a form of transcendence. Holism accordingly
>refers to seeing things in the world as interconnected.
>Michael Zimmerman writing on Hiedegger, Deep Ecology and
>Bhuddism stated
>
>"...both Heidegger and the Zen tradition maintain that once
>one is released from the constricted self-understanding
>associated with dualistic egocentrism, other people and
>things in the world no longer appear as radically separate
>and threatening, but instead as profoundly interrelated
>phenomena."
>
>Your heightened form of 'dualistic egocentrism' as expressed
>in your overwhelming sense of certainty regarding the use of
>military solutions is totally contrary to Heideggers
>"Gelassenheit" or letting things be.

John how can an ontology of any and every being-in-the-world POSSIBLY be 
"contrary" to any instance of being-in-the-world? It's very simple John, so 
let's get that straight first. Do you see why it is in principle impossible 
for an ontology of any and every being-in-the-world to be contrary to any 
particular way of being-in-the-world, yours or mine? Otherwise, it would 
exclude some ways of being-in-the-world, and therefore would not be an 
ontology of any and every being-in-the-world in the first place! Do you see 
this?

>The United Nations is
>the appropriate mechanism to disarm Iraq. Let the UN be.

Oh please, Letting things be, Let the UN be, the words sound similar so it's 
all the same to you, therefore Heidegger's ontology favors the anti-war 
side, totally ignoring the fact that being-anti-war is one way of 
being-in-the-world, and therefore cannot possibly be contrary to an ontology 
of any and every being-in-the-world!

>The UN did not make a resolution for a 'regime change'.

Resolution 1441, paragraph 4:

"4. ...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq 
pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, 
and COOPERATE FULLY in the implementation of, this resolution shall 
constitute A FURTHER MATERIAL BREACH..."

>For Heidegger, ontological
>
>'"...means an attitude which allows beings per se to stand
>as completely independent of any subject. Thus,
>"ontological" means the same as "realistic"'. [Force and
>Understanding, Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit]
>
>Here subject means 'self' or another 'self'...note that the
>US administration is very worried about the man but not the
>acts of the man.

And here comes the very ONTIC distinction between consciousness and its acts 
again. I can't believe that you're actually trying to unite that with 
Heidegger when it was Heidegger himself who overcame the very 
consciousness/acts distinction in the first place! There is no such 
distinction in encounters with the ready-to-hand, nor with Others. Do you 
see this?

>A regime change would be better than
>destroying the weapons. So the ontic predicament for the US
>is the subject, and the ontological subject is disarmament.

What fantastic realm of philosophy did you pull that meaning of 
"ontological" from? No wonder you think that the US position is opposed to 
Heidegger's ontology - you have an ontically contaminated interpretation of 
ontology, which therefore allows it to take "sides" in the first place. 
Again, an ontology of any and every being-in-the-world cannot possibly be 
contrary to ANY particular being-in-the-world: yours or mine. Otherwise, it 
would not be an ontology of any and every being-in-the-world in the first 
place.

>If the US could change regimes in Iraq and no weapons of
>mass destruction were obliterated, then this would be fine.
>The real risk for the US is the UN finding weapons of mass
>destruction made by the US in Iraq.
>
>The attitude means essentially to 'get real' about real
>things in the world, and one of  these real and simple truth
>beings is therefore our interconnectedness and our shared
>animal values (cf. Nietzsche). Spirit for instance is real,
>and it means
>
>"breath being"
>
>without breathing there is no passage.
>
>"The speculative interpretation of being is
>'onto-theo-logy'....Ontology is the speculatively conceived
>and thus speculatively grounded interpretation of being...."
>[supra note]
>
>Therefore the ontological as a propositional form of
>thought, is an attitude;  propositional thinking is an
>attitude about the real in the world. Your attitude about
>'deep ecology' or 'war mongering' suggests that you have an
>attitude about what is not real because there is no
>consensus, but there is a series of shameful propositions
>which lack any analysis.

Do you have any idea what an ontic kind of "consensus" you are talking about 
here? For Heidegger, mitsein is present in everything from the most 
universal consensus to our most private defiant thoughts. It has absolutely 
nothing to do with the kind of consensus you are talking about! Mitsein 
pervades everything from the most unilaterial war mongering attitude to the 
most universal agreements. The kind of consensus you are talking about here 
is excluded from some attitudes (the war mongering one), and therefore 
cannot possibly be what Heidegger meant. It's that simple John. Do you see 
this?

Anthony Crifasi

>"Where there is no clearly recognizable higher power and a
>struggle could only result in senseless damage for all
>concerned, mutual agreement is sought....Consequently
>justice is requital and exchange engaged in by nearly equal
>powers." [F. Nietzsche]
>
>According to Heidegger in Basic Concepts, the definition of
>a knowledgeable person, or scientist, is dependent on one
>primary state. That state is being able to observe and
>report on the whole versus observing only the partial.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus



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