Tribute to an Old Nazi (An Expropriating Appropriation)

Our humanity is not a matter of who we are, but of how we are whoever we are.  Thus, respecting humanity, whether in the person of ourselves or in the persons of others, is not a matter of establishing a clear identity for ourselves, either collectively or individually.  Nor is it a matter of preserving such an identity, once established.  That is, being human is not becoming aware of who we are, then protecting that against whomever and whatever we, for whatever reason, perceive as somehow threatening it.  That is especially so, if the supposed threat consists, as it often does, in no more than our supposed enemies simply having--in our eyes, even if not in their own—a supposedly different identity than the one we identify with.  

Being fully human is, first, a matter, not of establishing our identity, but of stabilizing our hold on ourselves, what-ever and who-ever we are.  And it is then an ongoing matter of demonstrating self-constancy or self-consistency in maintaining our grip on ourselves, thereby keeping faith in ourselves, staying steadily faithful to ourselves.  We must, in effect, keep trust or faith in ourselves, ever vigilant against betraying ourselves by literally letting ourselves go, forgetting ourselves like some already toilet-trained and out-of- diapers child going potty in its pants (forgive me if I’m forgetting myself and all my training in the proprieties by putting it that poopy way). If we don’t in that way keep the faith, we inevitably will and do betray humanity itself.  

In such betrayal we betray humanity both in the person of ourselves and in the persons of all others, whether those others share any identity with us or not.  If we do not maintain our self-stability we will do again what we have so horribly and so often done before, inevitably forgetting our very humanity and “going ape” again, like the pet monkey going ape in the bar his master has taken him to, running all around in a frenzy, defecating all over everything, in William S. Burroughs’ Naked Lunch.  To use another, less amusing but every bit as accurate, perhaps more properly sobering way of putting it (to borrow from a source I’ll let go unnamed, at the risk of being accused of plagiarism for my omission), like all the “good German” Nazis saying “This way to the gas, ladies and gentlemen!” Such self-styled good Germans murdered millions upon millions of people for no better reason than that those oh-so-good-Germans took those they murdered to be Jews, regardless of whether those murdered  took themselves that way or not. To give a paradigmatic example, Jean Améry, born Hans Meier, never took himself for a Jew until the Nazis forced him to, by making him one without his consent and even against his own wishes and sense of himself, in their Nuremberg Laws of 1935.

*     *     *

In short, to give a perhaps surprising condensation, the meaning of Being is to let beings be.  What Being itself means, whither it is tending, is just to let all beings be, that’s all!  Being means, wants, tends, and intends just this:  to let all beings be — all beings:  rich or poor, near or far, big or little, pagan or Christian, Arab or Jew, Greek-Jew or Jew-Greek, conscious or unconscious, natural or nurtured, fish or fowl, animal or vegetable or mineral, man or woman, certified citizen or “illegal alien,” rock or scissors or paper, trees or stones, dolphins or homo sapiens-sapiens, snails or frogs or puppy-dogs’ tails, sugar or spice or everything nice:  all beings!  

Just let them all be!  Nothing more. No big deal at all. And that’s what our humanity’s for, what being human means: staying faithful to ourselves and in that very process letting go of all our cherished images of ourselves so Being can have us, all of us, and use us to take place in and as us, at last fulfilling its own tendency, its own meaning, in us and through us and as us, by letting everything that in any sense “is,” just be, just as and what and how it is.  

Thus, becoming human is perhaps as simple yet hard and rare as learning how to hear all the way through the lyrics of a certain old Beatles’ song, all the way through the song’s “simple words of wisdom” to what those words are telling us, what they are pointing and directing us to.  And that is simply this, as the lyrics of the same song tell us, if we hear them clear through: “Let it be!”  (Or, as the God of Abraham and Jacob and Isaac, the God of Saul-become-Paul and that devil Peter, the God of Mohammed the Prophet and Mohammed-Ali, says at the very start of Genesis, at least had he said it in Latin: “Fiat!”)  

*     *     *

And that, in my judgment, is a fitting tribute to that old Nazi.  It gives him just what he deserves.  May all old Nazis be damned!  May they all rot in hell! 

Indeed, I’m quite certain that all old Nazis, including the one who lurked in Heidegger, already are, and always have been, damned to hell by their own hands. To which I can only add “Amen!” — which is to say, “So be it!” 

Auschwitz.jpeg


NOTE: The material in this post was actually written in 2012, for the Heidegger seminar I was teaching at the time.

Free Thought

To think is one thing, to attribute is another. Thought and attribution are as radically distinct from one another as is light from darkness. They differ one from the other as deeply as does redemption from sin—and, indeed, the relation between thinking and attribution might well be characterized as that between what could be called redeemed thinking, on one hand, and fallen thinking, on the other. 

Read more

Homesick

“I don’t know my way home.”

“That’s okay. . .  I don’t either.”

That is the dialogue in the closing scene of director Sam Peckinpah’s hyper-violent 1971 film Straw Dogs. The first line is delivered by Henri Niles, the mentally impaired character played by David Warner in the film. The reply comes from David Sumner, the highly intelligent (perhaps too intelligent) character played by Dustin Hoffman, a character who has just violently defended his rented house against armed intruders—a defense that has resulted in the death of a number of those intruders, as well as some other individuals. 

That closing dialogue takes place after all the violence—at least all the overt violence--has finally ended, and David is driving Henri back to the place where Henri lives. By what each says, neither knows his way home. However, Henri’s not knowing his way home is utterly different from David’s. 

Henri has what he experiences as a home, a place where he feels he belongs and to which he wants to return. It is just that because of his mental difficulties he doesn’t know how to direct David to drive there. 

On the other hand, David no longer knows just where, if anywhere, he has any such place of his own, a place where he feels he belongs and can live his own life. David is homeless in a deep and deeply disturbing sense that Henri’s very impairment protects him from ever having to experience. It is such utter lostness from all home that finds expression in David’s final words, especially as delivered with the enigmatic grin with which Dustin Hoffman delivers them.

 

2.

Do any of us know our way home today? 

Hardly.

Just where, if anywhere, do any of us today have a home at all any longer—any place where, as we honestly experience it, we truly belong? 

Why don’t we know our way home today? Whom in Peckinpah’s film do we most resemble in that regard? Henri or David? Are we of today not all, whether we have been brought to acknowledge it yet or not, just like David Sumner, who is forced by his own eruption into violence to acknowledge that he no longer knows his way home, at the end of that so graphically and disturbingly violent film? 

Even more crucially, isn’t the all too ever-present threat of our own eruptions into extremes of violence itself rooted in the very same radical homelessness to which David’s own eruption into such violence finally calls his attention?

In the scene at issue at the end of Peckinpah’s film, the underlying sense of David’s verbal acknowledgment of his own lack of knowing the way home any longer is something that only David himself can discern. It is an acknowledgment really directed solely to himself, not to Henri, the only other person in the car. Henri’s mental impairment assures that he will not understand what David is saying, and David knows that perfectly well. In what he is actually saying, David is talking to himself.

In so talking to himself, David is at last receiving a gift for which his whole life up till then has been preparing him. If he continues to be open to it, that gift will eventually bring him home again, but letting him truly know his home for the very first time. The gift to David, as it were, of his own outburst into violence is the shattering of his illusions about himself, and the revelation to him that he is indeed utterly homeless.

David’s violence shows him that he is homeless in a way that has nothing to do with having some “house” to defend against intruders, as—in an earlier scene in which the violence is just beginning to erupt into the open—David says is what he is going to do. David’s homelessness has nothing to do with the lack of adequate housing. Rather, it is rooted entirely in the deeply ingrained tendency to erupt into violence against anything or anyone who augurs to reveal precisely one’s very homelessness itself to one, a homelessness far more radical than any such lack of housing. 

 

3.

What is David’s problem, and by implication our own? Just why can’t David and the rest of us find our way home anymore? Henri’s inability to find his way home is due to his mental deficiency; but what about David—and all the rest of us by implication? What is the cause of David’s and all of our inability any longer to find the way home? 

Is that condition due to some sort of moral failure on our part? Something for which we ourselves are to blame, such that with a bit more courage and discipline we might have been able to avoid having lost our way home in the first place? Or is it something else?

It is something else.

Our homesickness is rooted in our own involuntary uprooting. We are wandering aimlessly in search of home, having lost all sense of where we are and how to get home again, because we have been torn out of what previously provided humans their home: We have been torn out by the roots from our “native soil.” 

Understanding that, however, leaves us to ask just what our true “native soil” is

That is a question that we all need to ask, alone and together. I will therefore let it remain open, as I should—at least for now.


Final scene of Peckinpah’s film

Final scene of Peckinpah’s film