Fw: Desire: FEVER!
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Moore <gottlos45@...>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 1:59 PM
Subject: RE: Desire: FEVER!
> ------Original Message------
> From: df803@...
> To: heidegger@...
> Sent: April 20, 2000 2:54:09 PM GMT
> Subject: Desire
> Mr. Moore,
> May I ask you a question?
> you wrote:
> 1)"Ontologically you are figuratively 'cut off' from everybody else,
> you are alone with your death. And that true partner provides you with
> highest desire."
> 2)"... art is never at the "foremost of reality"
> 3) and desire is fundamentally magical not real."
> 4)You were saying that ultimately each one of us is responsible for
> ourselves and not others, correct me if I am wrong please, this seems to
> imply that since there is no external standard of value by which to make
> decision on a future course of action; that attentiveness to the solid
> reality of everydayness is a sort of idleness and not-doing
> where we are cut off from external obligations, consensus, recognized
> directions and admitted truth is it not?
> 5)And this seems to me would be a release from the "burden of the
> universe" where desire suffices to itself and would you not describe it as
> intensity of life where there is "propensity to and not to" that is
> a perpetual opening that aspires to no particular satisfaction and is
> sobriety that is lucid yet not knowing an ultimate joy?
> A profound sense of simplicity, no?
> GARY C MOORE:
> Hi Ariosto! Glad to hear from you again! You are always appreciated. I am
> my stupidest right at the moment and will be stumbling over my own feet
> shouldn't be writing. But in my heart this is what I live for. So I can't
> resist. I am NOT a practical man. 'Phronesis' only serves the purpose of
> 'theoria'. That sounds stupid but I think it says something. But now I
> a triple perked cup of coffee.
> 1)I use the word "cut-off" badly because that implies a time of original
> unity like Aristophanes' hermaphrodite. What Heidegger describes in BEING
> AND TIME as dasein has both, on the one hand, an inheritance of tradition
> preontological understanding and a sense of cozy togetherness in the
> everyday 'They' self it shares in being-with, while, on the other hand, it
> also has what I call the solipsistic aporia that is "always already" in
> place, i.e., the obvious, you cannot know in any possible fashion not only
> what is going on in other people intellectually, emotionally, or any other
> way, but that being 'another person', even if you, for purely practical
> reasons, assume similar workings goes on within them as goes on within
> is a whole different realm of reality, i.e., "ontological". Different
> may translate with some similarity from person to person, but the context
> the Whole that makes sense of each and every item, emotion, sense,
> etc. in your life is not translatable, not communicable in any way because
> it is a whole and because it is the experience of your 'self', its
> multifarious history, its mismatch of self-indulgent emotions that
> everything else and need a rational mind to guide them(emotions just want:
> they have no 'how' or 'why': they are 'single-minded' and obsessed in and
> themselves: which puts even my love of philosophy in suspicion doesn't
> the irrevocable context of everyday reality you cannot get away from
> by changing one 'everyday' for another kind of 'everyday' but which is
> just yours, alone, and the future that also irrevocably pulls everything
> together of its own accord whether you like it or not of death which
> Heidegger makes a very explicit point that you cannot share in any way
> any one. In fact, death is a primary aspect of the solipsistic aporia
> because your future denies you everything literally yet motivates you in
> present to act in haste for the sake of a future that denies you
> 2) If solid reality is the 'everyday' and the real self the 'They' self
> these are the only things that endure reliably in your existence from
> to practical moment, then, literally, a place must be created for art and
> authenticity. In fact, "authentic art" and "artful authenticity" are
> 3)On this one point, I fully and uunequivocally support Sartre. Emotions
> not the result of honest, logical decisions ever. They have a
> one track life of their own and suffering the consequences of blindly
> in to them has no part in them. They are the quintessential "bad faith" in
> dasein because they demand that you've already made their decision for you
> when you haven't. But then you cannot even imagine life without emotions,
> even being in any real sense detached from them. You at every moment
> into the turmoil, whether you realize it or not (after all 'to realize' is
> an intellectual function THAT IS ALWAYS MOMENTARY WHEREAS EMOTIONS ARE
> 'FOREVER'), and it would take an immensely powerful passion to
> control them which would be a horrible contradiction would it not? It
> be like Kirilov's becoming God by committing suicide.
> 4)'Responsibility' is also, like emotion, a double-edged reality.
> says somewhere, and I wish I could remember where because he would say it
> much better but that is impossible in this mental fog, that, I think, in
> realization of the meaning of eternal recurrence you assume the
> responsibility of all existence. He does not say explicitly that is
> it can only live through you, but I think it is clearly implicite in the
> understanding of eternal recurrence, i.e., only an 'I' can realize, and,
> although everyone calls themselves an 'I', the only 'I' I can ever know is
> me. That there is no memory of all history and science, etc., preserved in
> the race or libraries or computers but only in the absolutely single
> 'I' with all its known deficiencies and faults and duplicities to self and
> others. In other words, when you, Ariosto die, the universe then has never
> existed -- doesn't go out, doesn't stop -- just: Thereby it all rests on
> your shoulders, all history, all memory, all science, philosophy,
> literature, etc. All. You. The death of you is the death of everything,
> you are responsible for it. Is that not a burden you would like to be
> relieved off? But you can't. It stays regardless because it is the simple
> fact of 'everyday' solid reality. Like the emotions, reality says you
> to it and, like emotion, enforces its demand drastically. So the only way
> out is the devious imagination, the trickster Loki.
> 4a) There are plenty of external value systems, but that just the point: a
> value system, an ethics per se, is ontologically external to dasein. They
> are easy to choose. All your emotions are screaming for one -- or
> or that one over there -- or the one you learned at your mother's knee --
> the one you learned from the back of your father's hand. So your emotions
> are soundly and thoroughly backed up by all sorts of memories. In fact,
> are saying you have "always already" chosen them, and hesitation now is
> cowardice and disloyalty, and you don't want to be a coward and a traitor
> you? In other words, your whole life backs you into a corner and only with
> utter ruthlessness can you make the ultimate decision, as Nietzsche said,
> that "Honesty is the only virtue". And then, left only with that pitiful
> tatter, does it then seem worthwhile when all these others offered you
> riches, affluence, influence, power -- comfort and coziness, sex, love,
> pleasure? "Honesty" is utterly worthless. Agreed. But it is the only place
> the imagination can function.
> 4b) And in 'everydayness' you are not cut off from obligations at all,
> the opposite. You have a thousand forces within your own soul telling you
> about your obligations to the real world. And it is real in every sense of
> the word. And, none the less, it is still, "You do this for the sake of
> for the sake of this other thing for the sake of something else" ad
> infinitum (I'm in a daze, I hope I spelled that right) so yes, it is idle,
> just like a motor in park racing as fast as possible, and that's all there
> is to it.
> 5)That desire suffices unto itself, aye, there's the rub. Even the desire
> for authenticity is a desire, and desire is inherently "bad faith". But
> desire doesn't want to be 'bad', or rather, you and desire which are still
> irrevocably one, do not want to be dishonest, bad, fallen, just thrown
> a piece of trash into the universal dustbin of history. The'everyday'' and
> the 'They' self know they are incomplete, are not sufficient unto
> themselves. Maybe even the emotions 'know' that. That is what dasein
> fundamentally is: ontological incompleteness. Nothing is finished, yet no
> one has the foggiest idea what 'complete' would mean here. Because reality
> IS the everyday, because the self IS the 'They' self, because the fallen
> thrown is the here and now and there is no other place for a "from" to
> from. Yes, it is very simple. In the authentic state, dasein is perfectly
> free to choose from its infinite possibilities. But there is no one to
> it what to choose, not even itself. Signed: FEVER
> --- from list heidegger@... ---
> iWon.com www.iwon.com why wouldn't you?