[np?] deep ecology

[lorentzen-nicklaus]

 "d e a r   e d i t o r: why does bill cooke allow for differing interpretations 
of nietzsche but not for heidegger? (oct/nov 2000). if nietzsche can be 
understood 'individualistically', certainly heidegger can as well. true, in the 
light of our increasing knowledge of heidegger's politics, terms like 
'authenticity' or 'destiny' take on a sinister tone; but equally they can appear 
innocent and insightful if read in the context of personal existentialism. 
moreover, the term 'mystical' is frequently applied to heidegger's later 
writings, and by any definition, mysticism deals with man's individual relation 
to the 'eternal' beyond society. again, heidegger's critique of the homogenous 
influence of technology or globalization, as we would call it now, and his 
evocation of earth as the 'building bearer' for man and nature could be read 
narrowly as a kind of fascist 'blood and soil' politics. equally, and i believe 
more truthfully, it furnishes a radical spiritual and all-embracing human 
philosophy, which preserves freedom and creativity and offers a framework for 
'deep ecology'. to say that heidegger's 'focus on being is static and gloomy' is 
over simplified. for heidegger, time is the 'transcendental horizon' for being, 
as the opening paragraph of   b e i n g   a n d   t i m e   makes clear. later, 
he even reversed the two, and coined more poetic terms for 'being'. the 
impression that heidegger's 'being' is static rather than dynamic is probably 
due to the psychological effect generated by the capital b, a misleading 
convention preserved in translation, one which promotes the notion of a 
tyrannical metaphysical absolute of the kind heidegger wanted to 'overcome'. it 
is better to think 'being' than 'b[as cap]eing'. it sounds more personal, and 
allows for a more ethical reading of heidegger's work.

 howard martin

 cheam, surrey" (philosophy now, issue 30, december 2000/january 2001, p. 43)


 mr. martin, das haben sie wirklich schön formuliert! kfl