Heidegger was Ontology biased using the dichotomy of Dasein/Mitsein
(being/being_with_others)
He felt that the Artist is a better area to identify 'being' than the
scientist. He was right in that the artist is 'into' expression, the 'one',
the 'unique' the 'pure' whereas scientists were into what is BEHIND the
expression, algorithms and formulas.
You can see from these simple basics the attraction of 'one reich, one
fuhrer, one fatherland'. ANY heavy-metal ontology will take-on
characteristics sourced in the human mind related to ONENESS, to internal
linkage. This is a fundamentalist emphasis. 'us' vs 'them' to the point
where all 'difference' is erradicated and so the reinforcement of
'sameness'.
There is a delusional emphasis in this sort of thinking where all negation
is destroyed until there is only '1'. At least Heidegger worked with a
dichotomy, the Nazi party aimed to remove the distinction :-)
You can identify 'object' thinking with 'oneness' thinking. It is single
context, child-like where emotional expression lacks refinement and so can
be childish and/or brutal; absolute; no prisoners; totalist.
Object thinking is part of our being, (Cambodia killing fields, Rawanda hutu
vs tutsi etc) it is associatable with Freud's ID, instinct driven, 'pure'
expression, no consideration of consequence. It is associated with
quantitiative PRECISION. The point. the dot. The emphasis on SAMENESS 'in
here' ('correct' thinking) and 'out there' leads to expressions of
exhileration that , with the introduction of DIFFERENCE, can switch to fear
and strong expression of paranoia.
This is more or less the domain of 'being' :-)
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
List Owner: http://www.egroups.com/group/semiosis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of elephant
> Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2001 10:10
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Heidegger
>
>
> Just like to offer a summary of the state of play on this one. A
> consensus
> exists that:
>
>
> 1. We'd all like to know more about Heidegger, because we're
> interested on
> philosophy, and the fact that Heidegger was a Nazi doesn't mean he never
> said anything interesting, philosophically speaking
>
> 2. We don't think ignorance of Heidegger is proof, in itself, that Pirsig
> or anyone else is an idiot, philosophically speaking
>
> 3. That's it
>
>
> So, maybe now someone would like to quit debating these three oh so very
> deep propositions, and tell us something about the little matter of what
> Heidegger actually thought, and how it relates to Pirsig.
>
> Kevin? Anyone?
>
>
> sink think flow slow
> washing in a bowl
>
> we are the waters
> that are the same and are not
> that we step into and do not
> that we can name and cannot
> comforting sand
> dunes by the banks
> that will remain and will not
> that we see into and do not
> that we can write on and cannot
> swim where we stand
>
> sink flow think slow
> drying on a rack
>
>
> Elephant
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:04 BST