Subject: Re: Anthony Crifasi's justification for war
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 01:16:28 +0000


Malcolm Riddoch wrote:

>On Sunday, March 23, 2003, at 04:26  AM, Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>
> > but all the reasons you gave me for WHY my justifications don't "have > 
>anything directly to do with how super power states use their power" > were 
>addressed by me, and these answers in turn were not addressed by > you in 
>your last reply to me
>
>Sorry, I can't find anywhere that you have addressed the notion of 
>machination that I addressed to you

Excuse me, I did not address that? THIS is what you specifically said I 
should address:

>I am however interested in what you think about machination and power 
>beyond good and evil. So again, what do you think about the proposition 
>that:
>
>>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.

This I addressed by proposing an explanation for US action other than 
"intent to realign the geopolitical order for this next century". These 
were:

1. The blatant violation by Hussein of UN resolutions 687 and 1441. (which 
you have not addressed)
2. The actions by Hussein against his own people which surpass what 
Milosevic did, and "das Man" certainly took care of Milosevic, and without 
UN approval. (which you have not addressed)
3. The direct parallel with another starving tin pot dictatorship that 
quickly became a starving tin pot nuclear capable dictatorship - North 
Korea. (which you have not addressed)

Now, as long as you leave these alternate explanations for US action 
unaddressed, then you are simply and dogmatically assuming your explanation 
in terms of "intent to realign the geopolitical order for this next 
century." So much for "thinking".

>cos they're Heideggerean arguments. As I said, you're free to believe in 
>the righteousness of your own beliefs. You believe the war is 'justified' 
>and claim that the individuals at the White House feel as you do... that's 
>all well and good Anthony.
>
>However, if you're at all interested in Heidegger's writings in relation to 
>the world historical truth of being, which means in relation to what is 
>happening now in this world of ours, you might like to have a read of his 
>Nietzsche volumes. Very interesting stuff, but from the perspective of the 
>problem concerning technology your notion of justice is something of an 
>anachronism.

>From the perspective of Levinas, that notion of justice is something of an 
anachronism too, as is your analysis in terms of power. You're projecting 
some metaphysical meaning of justice onto what I'm saying. What you are 
saying is perfectly true - of traditional notions of justice.

>It holds no weight in the calculation of power because power is its own 
>justification.
>
>A court can rule on a matter of justice within its jurisdiction, an 
>international court can even indict, convict and sentence to death the 
>failed rulers of vanquished states. A super power however is accountable 
>only to its constituency, and while your belief that men of righteous 
>honour and good christian ideals have control of the destiny of the US and 
>therefore of this world is rather quaint,

ah, now your real beef comes out.

>what if no one is actually in control of anything except the execution of 
>an amoral will to order that already sets up and historically constitutes 
>the current world order since at least the second world war?
>
>To get you started here's a few quotes from Heidegger's Nietzsche volumes 3 
>and 4 of the anglo translation:
>
>"in a metaphysical sense, every power has its own right and can only come 
>to be in the wrong through impotence. But it belongs to the metaphysical 
>tactics of every power that it cannot regard any act of an opposing power 
>from the latter's power perspective, but rather subjects the opposing 
>activity to the standard of a universal human morality - which has value 
>only as propaganda, however" (IV, p. 145).

That is a correct Nietzschian analysis, and follows for a TRADITIONAL notion 
of human "morality". The philosophy of ethics has advanced a bit since then 
Malcolm.

>"Truth becomes rightness, in the sense of a commanding absorption by the 
>one who commands into the compulsion of self-surpassment. All correctness 
>is merely a rehearsal of and an opportunity for such surpassing; every 
>fixation merely a foothold for dissolving all things in Becoming, hence a 
>purchase for willing the permanentizing of 'chaos' ... Truth is 
>'rightness', that is to say, supreme will to power. Only an unconditioned 
>dominion over the earth by human beings will be right for such 'rightness'. 
>Instituting planetary dominion, however, will itself be but the consequence 
>of an unconditioned anthropomorphism" (III, pp. 173-174).

Again, that follows perfectly for a TRADITIONAL notion of rightness, with 
its quaint metaphysical connotations. As Heidegger says, it inevitably 
becomes unconditioned dominion.

>Machination as "that Being which has released itself into sheer 
>accessibility through calculation, into the disposability of the beings 
>appropriate to it by way of unconditioned planning and arranging...[as] the 
>prepotence of all unquestioning self-assurance and certitude in securing" 
>(III, p. 175).

Yes, and what does Heidegger do to the mode of calculation, self-assurance, 
and certitude? He subordinates it.

>"The meaninglessness in which the metaphysical articulation of modernity is 
>consummated becomes something we can know as the essential fulfilment of 
>this age only when it is apprehended together with the transformation of 
>man to subiectum and the determination of beings as the represented and 
>produced character of the objective" (III, p. 179).

Yes, and what does Heidegger do to the mode of subject/object metaphysics? 
He subordinates it.

>"meaninglessness now attains power, defining in unconditional terms the 
>horizon of modernity and enacting its fulfilment... Everywhere and always 
>machination, cloaking itself in the semblance of a measured ordering and 
>controlling, confronts us with beings as the sole hierarchy and causes us 
>to forget Being" (III, p. 181).

Yes, and what does Heidegger do to the mode of measured ordering and 
controlling? He subordinates it.

>"The extremity of subjectivity is reached when a particular illusion 
>becomes entrenched - the illusion that all the 'subjects' have disappeared 
>for the sake of some transcendent cause that they all now serve" (III, p. 
>180).

Yes, that follows for the traditional notion of cause.

Malcolm, yes Heidegger is right about this, because the traditional notions 
of human morality, of rightness, of a good "cause" do unavoidably reduce to 
the machination to which you refer. But if someone like Levinas can propose 
an ethics which is PRIOR to subject/object metaphysics, which is PRIOR to 
the mode of measured ordering, which is PRIOR to the mode of calculation, 
and which is PRIOR to all traditional deprived notions of morality, 
rightness, and goodness, then your analysis would not apply. So you want to 
join Rene and me in reading Ethics and Infinity?

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail



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