On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 06:14:37 -0400, Candice Ward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 05:37:37 -0400, Candice Ward <[log in to unmask]>
>> Because he is quesrying Heidegger, not me. So he bettrer go and read
>> Heidegger himself. Why query me? You know already my answers. It is
>> Heideggere that you need to unravel, if you wish to do so....Mark
>> me? I see no point.
>LOL! Who would you have to converse with on this discussion list, Bela, if
>we all Marked your words?!
I do not deserve to be subjected to such a rhetoric of dialogue since I
simply do it daily, and I think I have done it with all of you a lot.
But I do not welcome ALL provocations , that's it. And have the liberty to
withdraw from those I do not feel I want to reply to, if they appear to me
totally a pretext for something else.
We were talking Heidegger, not about who is me and who is you (as Martin J,
was putting it down) , what do you accept of me and what do I accept of
you: for this it would be better to have a Reichian analysis group, so we
all punch each other on the face and tear each other hair.
All this to say that I select my antagonists. Secondly, because being very
aggressive, it is my recent strategy to cool down and discourage the poor
adventurous provoker to even come close to a fight with me (jocking!)
>>> When you counter Mark's "altruism" with Heidegger's nihilism,
>> (did you mean Marx? or did you really meant "our" Mark - the one on line
>> here and now -
>Yes, this was Mark's term, an extension of his question about Heidegger and
>the social self re Being. (We could bring Marx to bear on the social[ized]
>Laboring self, but did Heidegger have time for Marxian being? I don't think
> in that case, I find the association between the figure of
>> Mark nd the figure of Heidegger quiete hazarduous...Yet, I compliment you
>> for the daring move...... (Jocking)
>"I Know you Rider"!
>> .... you've
>>> certainly got a point (he was a Nazi too), but I think it's also
>>> to remember how affected his philosophical legacy was by the peculiar
>>> it took in Hannah Arendt, at least partly as a consequence of her
>>> for him. Something pretty close to altruism became integrated to the
>>> phenomenology later developed by such figures as Merleau-Ponty and
>>> some extent, the saintly Levinas.
>>>> Also, of you want to know what he thinks about the being before we talk
>>>> about heideggerian perpective, you should toa nd read Being and Time,
>>>> Candice is doing.
>>>>> I didn't say that I don't understand him at all. Let's say that I
>>>>> think one can abstract being from the matrix in which beings exist--
>>>>> being is only in dialogue--as language is only in dialogue, whether
>>>>> speakers are internal or external. That it's a matter of negotiation.
>>>>> that how one conceives of being has implications for how one acts in
>>>> Then you should read Sartre....(and be a Communist as he was). It is
>>>> Marxistic critique of society that enphaissed the importance of people
>>>> their own time. Youa re then talking not about the being (*the Self, as
>>>> intended in abstact, absolute trems, as in Helegel or Heidegger), but
>>>> are talking about identities at work. This is the point. Do identities
>>>> represent beings? The Pirandellian quest?
>>>> For matters concerning identities, you shall read Time and Free Will by
>>>> Bergson , who wrote extensively on the difference between the
>>>> and objective perception of time (history), memory and matters of these
>>>> kind and who , unlike Heidegger and Hegel, is very readable, his style
>>>> being locic and argumentative (explainatory, even).