Is that Judith Shklar - the liberalism of fear?

The only collapse here is a defeated England at Australia’s feet. Incredible opportunity thrown away.

In the third of the published volumes (XII-XV), in English p. 72. A dog (“my dog”) called Mohrle. I don’t think Heidegger changed his mind on animality - but his formulations on animal worldlessnes do vary.

Isn’t the bit after the not understanding bit it explained by the not understanding it bit?

He did have a dog though and he talks about it in the Ponderings text. A black Pomeranian.

He gloved it, no?

I don’t know the Swiss model - but I’m talking about parliamentary, electoral politics without parties, not “direct democracy”. (Simone Weil is my guide here.)

Very true - but the assessment part of this may be very skewed, or may rest on unfounded fears, as well as solid reasons. (I am not sure about the claim in parentheses btw. One of the things I mentioned in my own contribution with him was the way the party form prevents people speaking their mind.)

What does that reveal about norms? How about these two things? 1. that not respecting them is always possible. (A freedom condition.) But also 2. that it is not simply a statistical statement that norms (eg of right conduct) are typically respected. (A recognition condition.)

He thought he could resolve a party conflict in a national way. It did not resolve that conflict and proved a disaster for the nation he played politics with.

He reckoned on winning. Perhaps he could have if the image in Scotland (below) had been replicated nationally. He did not reckon on Corbyn.

If you are interested in what *might* be a possible “race without racism” conception, see the final footnotes to my recent (and also free!) paper on the formation of European Studies: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....

Right - culture as a proxy for race: “spiritual racism”. This is something one can see in Husserl but is not, I think, Heidegger’s position (or Spengler’s for that matter) - which is more about a contrast between (anyone) having it and not having it, rather than a hierarchy of types. But it’s crazy…

So the text I’m reading is Heidegger’s Black Notebooks. He doesn’t think the idea of breeding that is internal to the modern theory of race (as he understands it) is necessarily something thought through or thought out teleologically but he does think it has this drive towards deracialisation in it.

Fascinating. I am reading a text atm which argues that European race theory is inseparable from a “progressivist” theory of “breeding” that posits a telos of attained global deracialisation: everyone would have the same “block” characteristics. Marshall would doubtless favour Anglo-Saxon ones.

And Neurath’s tract is perhaps even less convincing… (I confess, I am trying to do better myself.)