Subject: Re: Holistic Thinking - Periander
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 22:52:34 +0000


John Foster wrote:

>Are you saying that Heideggers 'holism' includes every
>possible attitude , even attitudes which may culminate in
>acts of total annihilation for all life on earth?

Yes, because that is also a way of being-in-the-world, a destructive and 
perhaps even self-destructive way of being-in-the-world, but still, a way of 
being-in-the-world. All Heidegger is trying to do is to lay out the 
necessary conditions for us to be-in-the-world simply, not only some ways 
but not others.

>Then you are saying that this holistic attitude is wise.
>
>But what you have asserted here is that all attitudes are by
>nature wise propositions, and that even attitudes which
>culminate in total annihilation are also very wise.

Wisdom or un-wisdom doesn't apply on this level at all, because Heidegger is 
laying out the very conditions for being-wise (or unwise) in the first 
place, since that is one way of being-in-the-world.

>The unwise according to Periander only consider the parts
>within the whole....

Look there are surface similarities between that and Heidegger, but the 
devil is in the details. For example, for Heidegger the limited scientific 
attitude can be loosely characterized as considering only the parts within 
the whole, in the sense that the beings it considers are more deprived of 
their equipmental environment, and can therefore be generally and loosely 
characterized as having been in a way deprived of the whole. But that does 
not mean that the scientific attitude is OPPOSED or CONTRARY TO a mode of 
encountering beings as equipment. It simply considers beings more remotely, 
and therefore is not FALSE or UNTRUE in comparison. That is quite different 
from how Deep Ecologists characterize, for example, the way polluting, 
clear-cutting capitalists see the world. Deep Ecology draws a strong 
opposition or contrariety between it and an opposing view, which it casts as 
an absolutely untrue view of the world. It therefore cannot possibly be the 
same kind of emphasis on the "whole" as what Heidegger is doing.

>I did not know that Heidegger was presenting an "analytic of
>any and every 'being-in-the-world'. Can you explain what you
>mean by 'being-in-the-world'?

Well, it means being, period. Any and every possible way of being. To use 
extremely traditional (and therefore misleading) terminology, it provides a 
universal analysis of existence simply, and therefore encompasses any and 
every instance of existence and way of existing. That includes the kind of 
existence which is war-mongering or polluting, or peaceful and 
environmentally friendly. For example, one necessary condition of 
being-in-the-world is what Heidegger calls care, which means simply 
involvement in general, not any particular kind of involvement or way of 
being involved. To exist is to necessary be involved with something. Some 
kinds of involvement are more remote than others, but without some 
involvement there is no existing. For example, a tribesman living in a 
forest might, according to Heidegger, be more involved with a forest as it 
really is, than is someone who encounters the forest in a cold, calculating 
way, but that does not mean that the latter is FALSE or contrary to the 
being of the forest itself. It is simply a more remote encounter with the 
forest. It is a subtle distinction, but it makes all the difference in the 
world when determining whether we are dealing on an ontic or an ontological 
level.

>Analysis means to define, explain, take the whole and
>separate out into parts, and to unravel the nature of (   )
>an object, or subject.
>
>Holism (from the ancient Greek for whole) refers to a 'real'
>and  'operative factor' arising from order and organization
>within the universe. [Jan Smuts, Holism and Evolution]
>
>Thus it may be said that the approach and attitude taken by
>George Bush regarding Iraq is one of the possible, but it is
>not inclusive, therefore unlikely to be considered as a
>holistic approach to conflict resolution. Certain
>participants within the UN Security Council will veto the US
>engaging in war with Iraq.

ANY side (by definition) is not inclusive, not just George Bush's side. The 
side opposed to Bush's is obviously not inclusive of Bush's side. So neither 
can holistic in the Heideggerian way. The most you can draw from 
Heideggerian ontology on this issue is that one side involves a way of being 
which more readily reveals the Being of beings, or something like that. As 
for which side that is, I would argue on an ontic level that the side which, 
in order to make its point, must positively blind itself to way in which 
Iraq has blatantly conducted itself towards the UN over the past 12 years 
cannot be the side which more readily reveals the Being of beings.

>When the UN reaches general consensus, there is an
>'indication' of the type thinking and wisdom found in the
>'taking care of the whole of being' which Periander and
>Heidegger researched.
>
>Secondly, for the US, regime change is perceived as being as
>important as 'disarmament' even though the United Nations
>does not concern itself with 'regime change' and certainly
>as resolution 1441 indicates there is no need for a regime
>change.

The arms are a symptom. As has been historically proven since the first Gulf 
War, without removing the disease itself, the symptoms will inevitably 
return. There are not many times when I would approve of one country 
unilaterally taking out another one, but there are two unique conditions 
which makes this one of those times: (1) Hussein's past behavior, and (2) 
the UN's past behavior.

Anthony Crifasi

>Holism also refers to a tendency for greater order and
>perfection (organization) since disorder, chaos, and
>imperfection of forms of deprivation of  'being' in general.


_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



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