> How can there be "misreadings" given that "knowledge needs a
> conceptual framework in order to be produced"?
>
> The "knowledge" that:
>
> "all these forms and transformations are aspects of the will to
> knowledge: instinct, passion, the inquisitor's devotion, cruel
> subtlety, and malice."
>
> and that:
>
> "the instinct for knowledge is malicious (something murderous opposed
> to the happiness of mankind)."
>
> and that:
>
> "Knowledge does not slowly detach itself from its empirical roots, the
> initial needs from which it arose, to become pure speculation subject
> only to the demands of reason; its development is not tied to the
> constitution and affirmation of a free subject; rather, it creates a
> progressive enslavement to its instinctive violence.”
>
> also "needs a conceptual framework in order to be produced," doesn't it?
>
> Taken together, these passages derive "knowledge's" "instinctive
> violence" from an "instinct for knowledge," a "will to knowledge"
> identified with "instinct, passion, the inquisitor's devotion, cruel
> subtlety, and malice."
>
> Given that this "instinct," this "will," isn't the instinct/will of
> individuals, whose instinct/will is it?
>
> Does it ultimately derive, for instance, from the "essential
> character" of "Being" as "the violent" with "humanity" as what
> "gathers what holds sway ['the violent'] and lets it enter into
> openness"?
>
> Given that it's possible to figure out what they mean in themselves,
> what grounds are there for believing that the claims are "knowledge"
> in the sense of true claims about the nature of reality as it is in
> itself?
>
> Ted
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>