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

Re: [existlist] Heidegger

Expand Messages
  • Cris
    Hi Diana: Valid... A certain period has a technological culture as ideology. As accepted by all. yet objectified scienctific resoning, making all the same for
    Message 1 of 15 , Feb 10, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Diana:
      Valid...
      A certain period has a technological culture as ideology. As accepted by
      all. yet objectified scienctific resoning, making all the same for example,
      or all instruments of the invisible hand of jupiter, like Newton, or now
      Quantum theory, may or may not be a reified science, for example explaining
      existence as part of the cosmos and the cosmos having it own existence with
      out any need to be refelcted upon. If no one ois relfecting upon it, then
      it does exist in any consciousness.

      Science may or may not be a culture that reifies or is part of the
      realization of authenticity, depending how it is understood and apropriated
      or absorbed. This depending being how we evaluated it. Valid?

      Cris
      Thanks for your nice question.
      This is how I see it, maybe it is not Heidergger though:>))



      ----------
      > From: Diana <diana_alexandrova@...>
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Heidegger
      > Date: Friday, February 09, 2001 10:29 PM
      >
      > Hello everyone!
      >
      > I have a question to you concerning Heidegger. I'll remind you
      > briefly of two points and then will ask the question itself.
      >
      > 1. Heidegger's critique of the technological way of thinking:
      > The scientist becomes unable to conceive an alternative way of
      > thinking. This carries with itself a sort of spiritual poverty.
      >
      > 1. Temporality and historicity:
      > Man is changeable. Any way of representing the reality is valid only
      > for the particular Dasein and the particular historical time in which
      > he lives.
      >
      > My question: Does Heidegger criticize the technological way of
      > thinking itself OR it's claim to be the only valid way of thinking?
      > Or to put it in another way:
      > According to (2), the technological attitude is valid for the
      > particular Dasein and the paricular historical time. Then why should
      > Heidegger criticize it for spiritual poverty? According to (2),
      > Dasein knows himself what is valid and right for him.
      >
      > Diana
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > From The Exist List...
      > http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
    • Diana Alexandrova
      Hi Cris, So the point is that the scientific attitude is just one among many possible ones? It’s up to the human being to decide whether to accept it or not.
      Message 2 of 15 , Feb 10, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Cris,

        So the point is that the scientific attitude is just
        one among many possible ones? It�s up to the human
        being to decide whether to accept it or not.

        So when he raises the question of the meaning of
        being, he expects the answers to apply to the
        particular investigator only? It seems like this
        question (of the meaning of being)is just a theme for
        each individual to investigate himself (if he wishes,
        of course :-))

        Diana

        --- Cris <CSP2@...> wrote:
        > Hi Diana:
        > Valid...
        > A certain period has a technological culture as
        > ideology. As accepted by
        > all. yet objectified scienctific resoning, making
        > all the same for example,
        > or all instruments of the invisible hand of jupiter,
        > like Newton, or now
        > Quantum theory, may or may not be a reified science,
        > for example explaining
        > existence as part of the cosmos and the cosmos
        > having it own existence with
        > out any need to be refelcted upon. If no one ois
        > relfecting upon it, then
        > it does exist in any consciousness.
        >
        > Science may or may not be a culture that reifies or
        > is part of the
        > realization of authenticity, depending how it is
        > understood and apropriated
        > or absorbed. This depending being how we evaluated
        > it. Valid?
        >
        > Cris
        > Thanks for your nice question.
        > This is how I see it, maybe it is not Heidergger
        > though:>))
        >
        >
        >
        > ----------
        > > From: Diana <diana_alexandrova@...>
        > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: [existlist] Heidegger
        > > Date: Friday, February 09, 2001 10:29 PM
        > >
        > > Hello everyone!
        > >
        > > I have a question to you concerning Heidegger.
        > I'll remind you
        > > briefly of two points and then will ask the
        > question itself.
        > >
        > > 1. Heidegger's critique of the technological way
        > of thinking:
        > > The scientist becomes unable to conceive an
        > alternative way of
        > > thinking. This carries with itself a sort of
        > spiritual poverty.
        > >
        > > 1. Temporality and historicity:
        > > Man is changeable. Any way of representing the
        > reality is valid only
        > > for the particular Dasein and the particular
        > historical time in which
        > > he lives.
        > >
        > > My question: Does Heidegger criticize the
        > technological way of
        > > thinking itself OR it's claim to be the only
        > valid way of thinking?
        > > Or to put it in another way:
        > > According to (2), the technological attitude is
        > valid for the
        > > particular Dasein and the paricular historical
        > time. Then why should
        > > Heidegger criticize it for spiritual poverty?
        > According to (2),
        > > Dasein knows himself what is valid and right for
        > him.
        > >
        > > Diana
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > From The Exist List...
        > > http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
        >


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
        a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
      • louise
        Hi Existlist! Louise here ... and, serendipitously, I find this message and thought it might be worth consideration. I m still very far from a good working
        Message 3 of 15 , May 10 2:32 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Existlist!

          Louise here ... and, serendipitously, I find this message and
          thought it might be worth consideration. I'm still very far from a
          good working knowledge of the list's development, from 16-4-99
          onwards.

          Louise, a.k.a, prime beef, untouched

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Diana" <diana_alexandrova@y...>
          wrote:
          > Hello everyone!
          >
          > I have a question to you concerning Heidegger. I'll remind you
          > briefly of two points and then will ask the question itself.
          >
          > 1. Heidegger's critique of the technological way of thinking:
          > The scientist becomes unable to conceive an alternative way of
          > thinking. This carries with itself a sort of spiritual poverty.
          >
          > 1. Temporality and historicity:
          > Man is changeable. Any way of representing the reality is valid
          only
          > for the particular Dasein and the particular historical time in
          which
          > he lives.
          >
          > My question: Does Heidegger criticize the technological way of
          > thinking itself OR it's claim to be the only valid way of
          thinking?
          > Or to put it in another way:
          > According to (2), the technological attitude is valid for the
          > particular Dasein and the paricular historical time. Then why
          should
          > Heidegger criticize it for spiritual poverty? According to (2),
          > Dasein knows himself what is valid and right for him.
          >
          > Diana
        • louise
          Never an easy read. If anyone here wants to do some sampling, I have previous form. See #29022, #29198, #29244. Louise
          Message 4 of 15 , Oct 29, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Never an easy read. If anyone here wants to do some sampling, I have
            previous form. See #29022, #29198, #29244.

            Louise
          • Exist List Moderator
            Heidegger joined the Nazi Party in 1933. Shortly thereafter, he began reporting students to the SS and the university liaison to the Party. He suggested Hannah
            Message 5 of 15 , Nov 24, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Heidegger joined the Nazi Party in 1933. Shortly thereafter, he began
              reporting students to the SS and the university liaison to the Party.
              He suggested Hannah Arendt was a particular danger to Germany. I find
              this interesting since they had had an affair since she was 18 or
              maybe younger. The affair even continued after she had married.
              Anyway, she arrested, interrogated at length (including threats
              against family and friends), and accused of being a radical. As soon
              as she was released from jail, she fled to Paris with her husband.

              Heidegger "informed" on at least three other students of his,
              according to the books on Arendt I checked. He even suggested turning
              against his former proteges would help secure his post at the
              university. Maybe that makes him an opportunist and not a Nazi, but
              it does make him a despicable human being.

              As I said, I'm quite busy for the next few weeks, but I'll do what I
              can to locate precise documents and quotations from Heidegger's
              notes. Any text before about 1990 won't include the journals and Nazi
              paperwork that implicates Heidegger. I forget the names of the
              archives opened in 1987 that detailed his "testimony" against former
              students. I think Critchley (sp?) has written on the matter for
              Oxford University Press.

              Maybe some people can forgive what Heidegger did as part of the self-
              preservation that is common in any time of war. I find it hard to
              imagine the Nazi Party didn't know about his affairs with a Jewish
              mistress (or two). Heidegger had to make a choice... and he chose
              poorly.

              - C. S. Wyatt
              I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
              that I shall be.
              http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
              http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
            • eupraxis@aol.com
              CSW, The various collusion stories have turned out to be, according to the unbiased scholarship that I have seen, mostly apocryphal. As far as the Hannah
              Message 6 of 15 , Nov 24, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                CSW,

                The various collusion stories have turned out to be, according to the
                unbiased scholarship that I have seen, mostly apocryphal. As far as the Hannah Arendt
                story goes, she never published any account of it that I have seen, and no
                editor of her works (so far as I know) has offered the story. I have a bunch of
                her books, although not all, but the story you recount would be something you
                would think mentioned in at least one of them -- especially when the Heidegger
                relationship is being discussed in some detail. No?

                Her romantic relationship with Heidegger was stormy, but remained on-again
                off-again even AFTER the war. While Heidegger's acceptance of the Nazis was
                great blow to her, Arendt never, as far as I am aware, attributed any of
                Heidegger's opinions to any Nazi-like propensities, and I have not read anything by her
                that actually accuses Heidegger of snitching on her or anyone else. She
                thought he was naïve, overly romantic and cowardly, as well as a sellout to his
                friends. She called him "a silly self-entrapped fox without fur". Soft words to
                call someone who was responsible for your arrest. Why would she NOT implicate
                Heidegger for such an act of inhuman betrayal? I would have had some well
                chosen words in that case!

                I have heard various Heideggerians of note (some of whom are pretty good
                friends of mine) speak on these matters, especially in reference to many of the
                most serious claims. While I am not happy with the facts as they are anyway, I
                still have not been convinced of the kinds of things you mention.

                If you have the citations, I would love to see them.

                In any case, if the evidence IS credible, so much the worse.

                Wil



                In a message dated 11/24/06 3:33:16 PM, existlist1@... writes:


                >
                >
                >
                > Heidegger joined the Nazi Party in 1933. Shortly thereafter, he began
                > reporting students to the SS and the university liaison to the Party.
                > He suggested Hannah Arendt was a particular danger to Germany. I find
                > this interesting since they had had an affair since she was 18 or
                > maybe younger. The affair even continued after she had married.
                > Anyway, she arrested, interrogated at length (including threats
                > against family and friends), and accused of being a radical. As soon
                > as she was released from jail, she fled to Paris with her husband.
                >
                > Heidegger "informed" on at least three other students of his,
                > according to the books on Arendt I checked. He even suggested turning
                > against his former proteges would help secure his post at the
                > university. Maybe that makes him an opportunist and not a Nazi, but
                > it does make him a despicable human being.
                >
                > As I said, I'm quite busy for the next few weeks, but I'll do what I
                > can to locate precise documents and quotations from Heidegger's
                > notes. Any text before about 1990 won't include the journals and Nazi
                > paperwork that implicates Heidegger. I forget the names of the
                > archives opened in 1987 that detailed his "testimony" against former
                > students. I think Critchley (sp?) has written on the matter for
                > Oxford University Press.
                >
                > Maybe some people can forgive what Heidegger did as part of the self-
                > preservation that is common in any time of war. I find it hard to
                > imagine the Nazi Party didn't know about his affairs with a Jewish
                > mistress (or two). Heidegger had to make a choice... and he chose
                > poorly.
                >
                >
                >



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Mary
                What about Ettinger s work based on their correspondence? Mary ... the ... as the Hannah Arendt ... seen, and no ... have a bunch of ... something you ... the
                Message 7 of 15 , Nov 24, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  What about Ettinger's work based on their correspondence? Mary

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                  >
                  > CSW,
                  >
                  > The various collusion stories have turned out to be, according to
                  the
                  > unbiased scholarship that I have seen, mostly apocryphal. As far
                  as the Hannah Arendt
                  > story goes, she never published any account of it that I have
                  seen, and no
                  > editor of her works (so far as I know) has offered the story. I
                  have a bunch of
                  > her books, although not all, but the story you recount would be
                  something you
                  > would think mentioned in at least one of them -- especially when
                  the Heidegger
                  > relationship is being discussed in some detail. No?
                  >
                  > Her romantic relationship with Heidegger was stormy, but remained
                  on-again
                  > off-again even AFTER the war. While Heidegger's acceptance of the
                  Nazis was
                  > great blow to her, Arendt never, as far as I am aware, attributed
                  any of
                  > Heidegger's opinions to any Nazi-like propensities, and I have not
                  read anything by her
                  > that actually accuses Heidegger of snitching on her or anyone
                  else. She
                  > thought he was naïve, overly romantic and cowardly, as well as a
                  sellout to his
                  > friends. She called him "a silly self-entrapped fox without fur".
                  Soft words to
                  > call someone who was responsible for your arrest. Why would she
                  NOT implicate
                  > Heidegger for such an act of inhuman betrayal? I would have had
                  some well
                  > chosen words in that case!
                  >
                  > I have heard various Heideggerians of note (some of whom are
                  pretty good
                  > friends of mine) speak on these matters, especially in reference
                  to many of the
                  > most serious claims. While I am not happy with the facts as they
                  are anyway, I
                  > still have not been convinced of the kinds of things you mention.
                  >
                  > If you have the citations, I would love to see them.
                  >
                  > In any case, if the evidence IS credible, so much the worse.
                  >
                  > Wil
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > In a message dated 11/24/06 3:33:16 PM, existlist1@... writes:
                  >
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Heidegger joined the Nazi Party in 1933. Shortly thereafter, he
                  began
                  > > reporting students to the SS and the university liaison to the
                  Party.
                  > > He suggested Hannah Arendt was a particular danger to Germany. I
                  find
                  > > this interesting since they had had an affair since she was 18 or
                  > > maybe younger. The affair even continued after she had married.
                  > > Anyway, she arrested, interrogated at length (including threats
                  > > against family and friends), and accused of being a radical. As
                  soon
                  > > as she was released from jail, she fled to Paris with her
                  husband.
                  > >
                  > > Heidegger "informed" on at least three other students of his,
                  > > according to the books on Arendt I checked. He even suggested
                  turning
                  > > against his former proteges would help secure his post at the
                  > > university. Maybe that makes him an opportunist and not a Nazi,
                  but
                  > > it does make him a despicable human being.
                  > >
                  > > As I said, I'm quite busy for the next few weeks, but I'll do
                  what I
                  > > can to locate precise documents and quotations from Heidegger's
                  > > notes. Any text before about 1990 won't include the journals and
                  Nazi
                  > > paperwork that implicates Heidegger. I forget the names of the
                  > > archives opened in 1987 that detailed his "testimony" against
                  former
                  > > students. I think Critchley (sp?) has written on the matter for
                  > > Oxford University Press.
                  > >
                  > > Maybe some people can forgive what Heidegger did as part of the
                  self-
                  > > preservation that is common in any time of war. I find it hard to
                  > > imagine the Nazi Party didn't know about his affairs with a
                  Jewish
                  > > mistress (or two). Heidegger had to make a choice... and he chose
                  > > poorly.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • eupraxis@aol.com
                  Mary, I have seen reviews of the text, but have not read it myself. Have you? Do you suggest that I read it? I was led to believe that there isn t really any
                  Message 8 of 15 , Nov 24, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Mary,

                    I have seen reviews of the text, but have not read it myself. Have you? Do
                    you suggest that I read it? I was led to believe that there isn't really any
                    smoking gun there. Is that wrong?

                    Wil

                    In a message dated 11/24/06 5:18:50 PM, agignesthai@... writes:


                    > What about Ettinger's work based on their correspondence? Mary
                    >



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Exist List Moderator
                    ... Though my ability to translate stinks, I have reread the French article reviewing Victor Farias book, roughly Heidegger and the National Socialists or
                    Message 9 of 15 , Nov 24, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Nov 24, 2006, at 17:05, Mary wrote:

                      > What about Ettinger's work based on their correspondence? Mary

                      Though my ability to translate stinks, I have reread the French
                      article reviewing Victor Farias' book, roughly "Heidegger and the
                      National Socialists" or the U.S. title "Heidegger and Nazism."

                      Traduit de l’espagnol et de l’allemand par Myriam Benarroch et Jean-
                      Baptiste Grasset
                      Préface de Christian Jambet

                      http://www.editions-verdier.fr/v3/oeuvre-heidegger.html

                      The "Heidegger Controversy" by Richard Wolin is a decent overview,
                      though the U.S. edition is marred by the animosity between Derrida
                      and Wolin according to some reviewers. (Wolin believed copyright law
                      would allow large sections of Derrida's works to be reproduced as
                      critique, but there is a limit to Fair Use in copyright.)

                      If you dislike Heidegger, Wolin meets a certain bias. Farias is less
                      clear in his criticism, probably because he remained fond of Heidegger.

                      - C. S. Wyatt
                      I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                      that I shall be.
                      http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                      http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
                    • Mary
                      I ve read neither Farias or Ettinger s books, since they are unavailable through our humble interlibrary loan system. From the abundance of internet articles,
                      Message 10 of 15 , Nov 25, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I've read neither Farias' or Ettinger's books, since they are
                        unavailable through our humble interlibrary loan system. From the
                        abundance of internet articles, reviews, etc., it appears both books
                        are equally damning. Scholarship doesn't always demand the smoking
                        gun, but this could easily be found if Heidegger's literary executors
                        allow complete accessibility. Ettinger's book is criticized primarily
                        because she defends poor* Hannah from a feminist stance and that
                        Ettinger actually had very limited access to the Arendt-Heidegger
                        correspondence. Ettinger's approach also created an opposite opinion
                        of Arendt, as a collaborator and apologist. My first exposure to
                        Arendt was during my read of Cotkin's "Existential America." If I
                        recall correctly, she introduced Heidegger's work in the U.S. through
                        teaching and writing. But while she was introducing his philosophy
                        and criticising his totalitarianism, she was continuing her
                        relationship with him. Heidegger and his wife sought Arendt's help on
                        occasion. The fact that she despised him for his "murders" or
                        dismissals during his reign as rector, and loved him for a much
                        longer time than initially believed, only points to human complexity
                        and a Jewish angst that most of us will never experience. (There is
                        an incorrect perception that all Jews think the same about
                        everything, or that Jews are never anti-Semitic.) Some scholars
                        conclude that Heidegger's postwar silence and refusal to apologize
                        for his actions speaks volumes. It also didn't help dissuade his
                        detractors when he stated the Nazis weren't dedicated enough. Even
                        his contemporaries, Marcuse and Jasper, thought him guilty. And now,
                        as Bill suggests, I will say no more. Mary

                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                        >
                        > Mary,
                        >
                        > I have seen reviews of the text, but have not read it myself. Have
                        you? Do
                        > you suggest that I read it? I was led to believe that there isn't
                        really any
                        > smoking gun there. Is that wrong?
                        >
                        > Wil
                        >
                        > In a message dated 11/24/06 5:18:50 PM, agignesthai@... writes:
                        >
                        >
                        > > What about Ettinger's work based on their correspondence? Mary
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                      • Wil
                        Okay, so allow me to play something of a devil s advocate. Does the onus of association with fascists (or whomever -- you can fill in the blank), automatically
                        Message 11 of 15 , Nov 25, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Okay, so allow me to play something of a devil's advocate.

                          Does the onus of association with fascists (or whomever -- you can fill in the blank),
                          automatically delegitimize a text or an author or an artist? Paul de Man's reputation was
                          forever ruined by a similar and perhaps worse scandal back in the 80s that he personally
                          published anti-Semitic leaflets during WWII. We have already discussed Pound.

                          Althusser's influence quickly eclipsed after he strangled his wife in a psychotic episode. My
                          dislike of Derrida increased by several folds after his death when Allison revealed that
                          Derrida's self-avowed biggest influence was Leo Strauss! Foucault's reputation took a
                          dump when it was revealed that he died of AIDS, and that he may have suspected of his
                          illness even during his activities in bath houses. The self-loathing German writer Kohler
                          has written a few books that purport to show that Nietzsche was a gay, anti-Semitic
                          proto-Nazi activist. (An awful bunch of texts, by the way, that vie with Nancy Grace for
                          being utterly without intellectual conscience. Incidentally, almost everyone that Kohler
                          writes about ends up as being gay, anti-Semitic and proto-Nazi. I think he has issues.)

                          Socrates trained Alcibiades; Diogenes whacked it in public; Plato hated poets; Aristotle
                          watched on as Alexander trampled on Hellenism; Augustine advocated the killing of
                          disbelievers; Descartes' rationalism lead to a pate of cat killings; Newton became an
                          executioner; Beethoven peed in a pot... the list goes on.

                          A wretched race, we.

                          Wil
                        • Mary
                          Wil, a complete correspondence has been authorized: But for all its flaws, the publication of Ettinger s book had two good results. First, it convinced the
                          Message 12 of 15 , Nov 25, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Wil, a complete correspondence has been authorized:

                            "But for all its flaws, the publication of Ettinger's book had two
                            good results. First, it convinced the Heidegger and Arendt estates to
                            authorize a complete edition of their letters; it appeared in Germany
                            in 1998, and now arrives for the first time in English as Letters
                            1925-75."

                            http://www.nextbook.org/features/feature_kirsch.html

                            I also recommend this:

                            http://www.nextbook.org/features/feature_kirsch.html

                            Now I'm done,
                            Mary



                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <agignesthai@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > I've read neither Farias' or Ettinger's books, since they are
                            > unavailable through our humble interlibrary loan system. From the
                            > abundance of internet articles, reviews, etc., it appears both
                            books
                            > are equally damning. Scholarship doesn't always demand the smoking
                            > gun, but this could easily be found if Heidegger's literary
                            executors
                            > allow complete accessibility. Ettinger's book is criticized
                            primarily
                            > because she defends poor* Hannah from a feminist stance and that
                            > Ettinger actually had very limited access to the Arendt-Heidegger
                            > correspondence. Ettinger's approach also created an opposite
                            opinion
                            > of Arendt, as a collaborator and apologist. My first exposure to
                            > Arendt was during my read of Cotkin's "Existential America." If I
                            > recall correctly, she introduced Heidegger's work in the U.S.
                            through
                            > teaching and writing. But while she was introducing his philosophy
                            > and criticising his totalitarianism, she was continuing her
                            > relationship with him. Heidegger and his wife sought Arendt's help
                            on
                            > occasion. The fact that she despised him for his "murders" or
                            > dismissals during his reign as rector, and loved him for a much
                            > longer time than initially believed, only points to human
                            complexity
                            > and a Jewish angst that most of us will never experience. (There is
                            > an incorrect perception that all Jews think the same about
                            > everything, or that Jews are never anti-Semitic.) Some scholars
                            > conclude that Heidegger's postwar silence and refusal to apologize
                            > for his actions speaks volumes. It also didn't help dissuade his
                            > detractors when he stated the Nazis weren't dedicated enough. Even
                            > his contemporaries, Marcuse and Jasper, thought him guilty. And
                            now,
                            > as Bill suggests, I will say no more. Mary
                            >
                            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Mary,
                            > >
                            > > I have seen reviews of the text, but have not read it myself.
                            Have
                            > you? Do
                            > > you suggest that I read it? I was led to believe that there isn't
                            > really any
                            > > smoking gun there. Is that wrong?
                            > >
                            > > Wil
                            > >
                            > > In a message dated 11/24/06 5:18:50 PM, agignesthai@ writes:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > > What about Ettinger's work based on their correspondence? Mary
                            > > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            > >
                            >
                          • Mary
                            Wil, I ve very little difficulty separating the art/philosophy from the artist s/philosopher s political and private life. People are sometimes complex
                            Message 13 of 15 , Nov 26, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Wil,

                              I've very little difficulty separating the art/philosophy from the
                              artist's/philosopher's political and private life. People are
                              sometimes complex struggling with inner alterity, which renders
                              authenticity. By that I mean alterity may shred and/or create over
                              the course of a life. William Burroughs claimed that if he hadn't
                              killed his wife, he'd never have become a writer. So it may then
                              appear that for each Titanic life, there is an iceberg. I can despise
                              Pound's economic theories and* enjoy his writing.

                              Mary

                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Wil" <eupraxis@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Okay, so allow me to play something of a devil's advocate.
                              >
                              > Does the onus of association with fascists (or whomever -- you can
                              fill in the blank),
                              > automatically delegitimize a text or an author or an artist? Paul
                              de Man's reputation was
                              > forever ruined by a similar and perhaps worse scandal back in the
                              80s that he personally
                              > published anti-Semitic leaflets during WWII. We have already
                              discussed Pound.
                              >
                              > Althusser's influence quickly eclipsed after he strangled his wife
                              in a psychotic episode. My
                              > dislike of Derrida increased by several folds after his death when
                              Allison revealed that
                              > Derrida's self-avowed biggest influence was Leo Strauss! Foucault's
                              reputation took a
                              > dump when it was revealed that he died of AIDS, and that he may
                              have suspected of his
                              > illness even during his activities in bath houses. The self-
                              loathing German writer Kohler
                              > has written a few books that purport to show that Nietzsche was a
                              gay, anti-Semitic
                              > proto-Nazi activist. (An awful bunch of texts, by the way, that vie
                              with Nancy Grace for
                              > being utterly without intellectual conscience. Incidentally, almost
                              everyone that Kohler
                              > writes about ends up as being gay, anti-Semitic and proto-Nazi. I
                              think he has issues.)
                              >
                              > Socrates trained Alcibiades; Diogenes whacked it in public; Plato
                              hated poets; Aristotle
                              > watched on as Alexander trampled on Hellenism; Augustine advocated
                              the killing of
                              > disbelievers; Descartes' rationalism lead to a pate of cat
                              killings; Newton became an
                              > executioner; Beethoven peed in a pot... the list goes on.
                              >
                              > A wretched race, we.
                              >
                              > Wil
                              >
                            • louise
                              Hmm, I can t help thinking, Mary, that there s such a thing as the wrong kind of confidence. Do you have, for instance, any succinct description to offer us,
                              Message 14 of 15 , Nov 26, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hmm, I can't help thinking, Mary, that there's such a thing as the
                                wrong kind of confidence. Do you have, for instance, any succinct
                                description to offer us, concerning your perception of Pound's ideas
                                on Social Credit, or any other aspect of his economic theories??
                                Also, I'm unsure if you're linking the concept of wife-killing with
                                a metaphor of "Titanic life", quite extraordinary confluence of
                                images. Living ships??? No, really, am just far off understanding
                                your drift in this message. All clarification welcome. Louise

                                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <agignesthai@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Wil,
                                >
                                > I've very little difficulty separating the art/philosophy from the
                                > artist's/philosopher's political and private life. People are
                                > sometimes complex struggling with inner alterity, which renders
                                > authenticity. By that I mean alterity may shred and/or create over
                                > the course of a life. William Burroughs claimed that if he hadn't
                                > killed his wife, he'd never have become a writer. So it may then
                                > appear that for each Titanic life, there is an iceberg. I can
                                despise
                                > Pound's economic theories and* enjoy his writing.
                                >
                                > Mary
                                >
                                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Wil" <eupraxis@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > Okay, so allow me to play something of a devil's advocate.
                                > >
                                > > Does the onus of association with fascists (or whomever -- you
                                can
                                > fill in the blank),
                                > > automatically delegitimize a text or an author or an artist?
                                Paul
                                > de Man's reputation was
                                > > forever ruined by a similar and perhaps worse scandal back in
                                the
                                > 80s that he personally
                                > > published anti-Semitic leaflets during WWII. We have already
                                > discussed Pound.
                                > >
                                > > Althusser's influence quickly eclipsed after he strangled his
                                wife
                                > in a psychotic episode. My
                                > > dislike of Derrida increased by several folds after his death
                                when
                                > Allison revealed that
                                > > Derrida's self-avowed biggest influence was Leo Strauss!
                                Foucault's
                                > reputation took a
                                > > dump when it was revealed that he died of AIDS, and that he may
                                > have suspected of his
                                > > illness even during his activities in bath houses. The self-
                                > loathing German writer Kohler
                                > > has written a few books that purport to show that Nietzsche was
                                a
                                > gay, anti-Semitic
                                > > proto-Nazi activist. (An awful bunch of texts, by the way, that
                                vie
                                > with Nancy Grace for
                                > > being utterly without intellectual conscience. Incidentally,
                                almost
                                > everyone that Kohler
                                > > writes about ends up as being gay, anti-Semitic and proto-Nazi.
                                I
                                > think he has issues.)
                                > >
                                > > Socrates trained Alcibiades; Diogenes whacked it in public;
                                Plato
                                > hated poets; Aristotle
                                > > watched on as Alexander trampled on Hellenism; Augustine
                                advocated
                                > the killing of
                                > > disbelievers; Descartes' rationalism lead to a pate of cat
                                > killings; Newton became an
                                > > executioner; Beethoven peed in a pot... the list goes on.
                                > >
                                > > A wretched race, we.
                                > >
                                > > Wil
                                > >
                                >
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.