Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fw: Desire: FEVER!

Expand Messages
  • Jennifer Moore
    ... From: Gary Moore To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 1:59 PM
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 20, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Gary Moore <gottlos45@...>
      To: <heidegger@...>
      Cc: <genipher@...>
      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
      >
      > ARIOSTO!:
      > Mr. Moore,
      >
      > May I ask you a question?
      >
      > you wrote:
      >
      > 1)"Ontologically you are figuratively 'cut off' from everybody else,
      except
      > you are alone with your death. And that true partner provides you with
      your
      > 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
      a
      > 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
      also
      > 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?
      >
      > Ariosto
      >
      > GARY C MOORE:
      > Hi Ariosto! Glad to hear from you again! You are always appreciated. I am
      at
      > my stupidest right at the moment and will be stumbling over my own feet
      and
      > 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
      have
      > 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
      in
      > 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
      you,
      > is a whole different realm of reality, i.e., "ontological". Different
      items
      > may translate with some similarity from person to person, but the context
      of
      > the Whole that makes sense of each and every item, emotion, sense,
      ability,
      > 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
      disregard
      > 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
      by
      > themselves: which puts even my love of philosophy in suspicion doesn't
      it?),
      > the irrevocable context of everyday reality you cannot get away from
      except
      > by changing one 'everyday' for another kind of 'everyday' but which is
      still
      > 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
      with
      > any one. In fact, death is a primary aspect of the solipsistic aporia
      > because your future denies you everything literally yet motivates you in
      the
      > present to act in haste for the sake of a future that denies you
      everything.
      >
      > 2) If solid reality is the 'everyday' and the real self the 'They' self
      and
      > these are the only things that endure reliably in your existence from
      moment
      > to practical moment, then, literally, a place must be created for art and
      > authenticity. In fact, "authentic art" and "artful authenticity" are
      clumsy
      > redundancies.
      >
      > 3)On this one point, I fully and uunequivocally support Sartre. Emotions
      are
      > not the result of honest, logical decisions ever. They have a
      simple-minded,
      > one track life of their own and suffering the consequences of blindly
      giving
      > 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,
      or
      > even being in any real sense detached from them. You at every moment
      THROWN
      > 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
      fundamentally
      > control them which would be a horrible contradiction would it not? It
      would
      > be like Kirilov's becoming God by committing suicide.
      >
      > 4)'Responsibility' is also, like emotion, a double-edged reality.
      Nietzsche
      > says somewhere, and I wish I could remember where because he would say it
      so
      > much better but that is impossible in this mental fog, that, I think, in
      the
      > realization of the meaning of eternal recurrence you assume the
      > responsibility of all existence. He does not say explicitly that is
      because
      > 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
      living
      > '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,
      and
      > 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
      belong
      > 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
      another --
      > or that one over there -- or the one you learned at your mother's knee --
      or
      > 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,
      they
      > 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
      do
      > 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
      such
      > 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,
      just
      > 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
      that
      > 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
      like
      > 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
      and
      > thrown is the here and now and there is no other place for a "from" to
      come
      > 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
      tell
      > it what to choose, not even itself. Signed: FEVER
      >
      >
      >
      > --- from list heidegger@... ---
      >
      > *********************************************
      > iWon.com www.iwon.com why wouldn't you?
      > *********************************************
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.