Thomas Seay wrote:
> Oh darn...I am not being authentic, just
> reacting...and that's the problem. Now where can I
> learn about being authentic??????????????? Is there a
> class I can take on that?
Classes (very easy to find in contemporary North America) that treat Nietzsche, Heidegger and Foucault as gospel might be to your taste. I've pointed to what Nietzsche and Foucault regard as "authenticity." You can find Heidegger's version of this spelled out in his "reading" of a brief passage from Antigone. (Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics, pp. 158-76) Here's a sample:
"Humanity is violence-doing not in addition to and aside from other qualities but solely in the sense that from the ground up and in its doing violence, it uses violence against the overwhelming. Because it is doubly _deinon_ in an originally united sense, it is _to deinotaton_, the most violent: violence doing in the midst of the overwhelming." p. 160
This, I take it, is "the inner truth and greatness" of National Socialism (p. 213).
Neitzsche and Foucault claim that radical skepticism including the treatment of values as wholly subjective is the product of the working of this "authenticity." They also claim (inconsistently as Heidegger points out in the case of Nietzsche (pp. 213-4)) that this (radical skepticism) frees us for guilt free enjoyment of this "authenticity" - "the primordial pleasure to be found in causing pain."
Ted Hey Teddybud, forgive me for speaking up without knowing the work you cite (got no titles to hang on my name either) but here's a take on 'from the ground up', etcetera from a definitional point of view for ya/yall; wouldn't and couldn't radical subjectivity have to be identical with authenticity if it cared to lay claim to consistent closure (never mind satisfaction now)? ----- Apart from what Heidegger might have meant here methinks so and furthermore that the most 'equivaluable' 'tabulatability' properties (and other horsey hi de hoo away we go with objectivity in tow hi-jack prevention stimulus) articulable could only thus be housed in a one (made ((one)) by many) piece logic construct,
.. . . so stop your projection of all that low blow,
.. .. can't let you drag me up cause I don't wanna grow.
Surely one of us now stands accused of a badmouthing here so it's off to the wash and wipe . .. . with which one of us again? And was he ever really one of us? I am saying that allowing for the sorta ultra subjectivity allocation I think Heidegger might, or in any case, if you ask me, should have meant here we will see tolerances set narrowly close and careful enough to help each (broken up and away into subjectivity sort of) superjacked subject soon reach and learn (to work it's valves, membranes, borders and) it's limits (from the ground on up anyone?), learning to stub it's toes in a preferably ground breaking and (if rocky probably) waterholding capacity improving way early on enough to toe the line perfectly by the time the on your toes period (not to speak of the long toe sidestep ((sliding sidejump if you really want to shoccer it to them)) segment since though stepping on somebody's IS but the long boobytrap like ones are, as far as I know ((mental note: google 'having long toes' (maso skitsum) vs 'stepping on toes' (saditch 'm))) a not yet anglified dutschism schism till further notice) of life rolls around.
-- trilingual piet presents: http://members.tripod.com/poetpiet http://members.lycos.nl/vadercats http://members.lycos.nl/vadercats/Deutsch.htm