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

Fwd: [heidegger-dialognet] Heidegger's Paen to Hate

Expand Messages
  • Gary C. Moore
    ... While going back over my underlinings and notes in the first volume of Krell s version of Nietzsche, The Will to Power as Art, looking for quotes from
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 30, 2000
      --- In heidegger-dialognet@egroups.com, "Gary C. Moore" wrote:
      While going back over my underlinings and notes in the first
      volume of Krell's version of Nietzsche, The Will to Power as Art,
      looking for quotes from Nietzsche (and Heidegger) on the philosophy of
      art as the only enduring and fundamental meaning of life. Most Western
      philosophers seem to look upon art, as well as philosophy, as a last
      refuge (a refuge no one else usually wastes time intruding upon) from
      the failure of being effective in `real' life, i.e., business,
      science, politics, the military, education – that about covers it
      all, doesn't it? Stating it in such a way makes it seem especially
      pallid and paltry.
      > Abhinavagupta's aesthetics on the other hand literally
      side step, by pass, the whole traditional core of Hindu religion,
      making it seem, in practicality, by phronesis, pointless in a
      different way than Shankara does (useless superstition, since you
      have no knowledge that ritual and religion accomplish anything, and
      sounds like Paul denouncing the literal following of the laws of the
      Torah, except that Shankara has no room for faith) by making
      religion – and philosophy (which are not different in India so
      that a
      prominent Indian scholar can say, referring to Bhartrhari's
      fascinating philosophy of language, that it "even includes
      atheists") – into drama, both tragic and comic, possibly
      of the Attic Greeks when they wrote tragic trilogies for the
      competition of the Dionysia that was always combined
      with a lewd and ludicrous satyr play (Aiskylos supposedly wrote the
      most outrageous of these, but none have survived unless dug up in
      Egypt very recently, and Euripides' Cyclops is pretty pallid compared
      to the glimpses we have had of the others). My purpose was to
      exemplify Abhinavagupta's exaltation of supreme aesthetic bliss,
      similar to what Aristotle calls "catharsis" as if it were negative
      (but could it be better described as a getting out of one's petty,
      experience/meaning poor, little life?) and Longinus, with many
      similarities, calls "the sublime", but what Abhinavagupta
      calls "santarasa" which he states is superior to the attainments of
      the most rigorous and religious yogi.
      > Abhinavagupta has completely absorbed the earlier Shankara's
      astringent and extremely consistent monism (which is like comparing
      the later Heidegger talking about Holderlin and van Gogh and Tarentum
      with the Heidegger of Being and Time where authentic dasein has
      clarified its situation, heeded the call of conscience, recognized
      the complete freedom of its possibilities, yet has no automatic,
      external code of behavior to guide their actions (for dasein primally
      must judge everything, even the goodness and purpose of God), i.e.,
      is all dressed up and ready with no place to go, or expressed
      negatively and ironically by Ivan Karamazov, "If God does not exist,
      then all things are permitted".) with Bhartrhari's philosophy of
      language which gives an objective aspect to divinity comparable to
      the use of language as being spoken through man (as animal, for
      Heidegger does not say the definition of man as rational animal is
      wrong, just like he never says logic and reason are wrong ((which
      would be nonsensical)) which, if you follow through the thinking in
      The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics makes `awareness' and the use
      of rational language are two completely different things (two
      different ontological regions?), and what I call his `play time with
      the gods', the dramatic exposition of religious ritual and magic
      without reference to affecting the material world, but
      philosophically reminds me of the closing quote of THE PRINCIPLE OF
      REASON where he uses Heraclitus to say the history of being is a
      child playing draughts.
      I found a surprise starting on page 46 of Krell's Nietzsche where
      Heidegger, basically discussing the meaning of "the will to power",
      begins a description of emotionally stepping outside of one's self.
      The `will to power' takes on here a great likeness to "Being" as we
      normally translate it with a capital "B" which, being Germanless and
      Greekless as well as Sanskritless, from what I understand, may not be
      proper at all since it would rupture the consistency of Heidegger.
      When he discusses the "being" of dasein or any being and the "being"
      of beings the discussion becomes meaningless unless that "being" is
      exactly the same. This is clarified, from my point of view (which
      ontologically is the only view I can have), by Shankara's extreme
      monism where when he says everything is one, he means it literally and
      says you can't as jivanmukta, one who has uncovered the truth of
      Brahma one has always already known, act in real life, but leaves it a
      philosophical puzzle at that because, having realized self and Brahma
      are the same, releases one from everything, leaving dasein in exactly
      the same place the Heidegger of Being and Time and Ivan Karamazov left
      him: all dressed and ready but nowhere to go, because jivanmukta has
      transcended religion, has transcended ethics, has transcended
      tradition and has essentially erased them! In Indian culture, the
      poet is not considered traditionally insane, `in tune with the gods',
      as our culture does. With them it is the religious/philosopher hermit
      who is the mad man! He has everything and nothing. He is like Meister
      Eckhart having a vision of the godhead as a desert, but that's it,
      it's not a symbol, and nothing else stands behind it. It is the
      Brahma of Shankara and the Upanishads: the unwitnessed witness.
      Back to `Being' as the `will to power: Heidegger's text itself is
      a passion, which is the same thing he is discussing, contrasting
      passion with infatuation. He deals with two pairs of words: hate and
      anger, and love and infatuation. But the comparison is far from
      balanced. Anger is a little thing, too intensely attached to its
      object like infatuation, and like infatuation soon passes away. Hate,
      though, the unchosen will to power which dasein (?), the finite self
      (?), (over the years, "everydayness" and inauthenticity become MORE
      fascinating than the `moment of vision' and `authenticity' because
      the later must somehow come directly from the former! Something
      obscure to me but probably self-evident to you) latches onto in
      authentic resolve, and. . . endures. "Hate cannot be produced by a
      decision; it too seems to overtake us—in a way similar to that to
      when we are seized by anger. Nevertheless the manner in which it
      comes over us is essentially different. Hate can explode suddenly in
      an action or exclamation, but only because it has already overtaken
      us, only because it has been growing within us for a long time, and,
      as we say, has been nurtured in us. But something can be nurtured
      only if it is already there and is alive. In contrast, we do not say
      and never believe that anger is nurtured. Because hate lurks much
      more deeply in the origins it has a cohesive power; like love, hate
      brings an original cohesion and perdurance to out essential being"
      (p.47). "Love" is mentioned as an afterthought, as if all the above
      also applies to it, but Heidegger does not clearly say so. But I
      stop, probably having said too much in total confusion. I'm just
      enthusiastic, tired, and rushed for time. But it's important to me.

      --- End forwarded message ---
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.