In response to my post to Curtis Clark some time ago, Ian Muhlhauser
has written:
>The Internet is a joke. It's this sort of marginization of new attempts
>at expression, and the replication of the exact sort of philosophic
>activity that occurs in up-tight graduate class-rooms that leads me to
>believe that nothing new is going on, especially not the sort of
>"thinking" that should be taking place.
If Mr. Muhlhauser doesn't like my curt writing style, that doesn't bother
me in the least. I was writing to Mr. Clark not in disdain, as my
letter should clearly show, nor in reprimand, but because I was
interested enough in what I could make of his comments that I wanted to
understand him. And one has good reason to suspect strange writing,
because people often enough pull strange tricks to get attention on news
groups. Further, even if my letter indicated the greatest intellectual
vacuousness, it wouldn't reflect at all on the quality
of thinking on this circuit. Finally, isn't there a limit to the new
forms of expression one can accept? If the person writes in binary
coding, he may really be expressing himself "authentically" [sic], but
isn't it natural to become a little irritated at the arduaous process of
decoding his "expression". In Mr. Clark's case I know my first instinct
is just to delete the message rather than puzzle over it for a reward of
only three or four sentences. Sometimes that's what I do.
>This is not to celebrate the sort of "post-apocalyptic"? disruption
>which is being criticized above, but I don't think anyone on the list is
>in any 'place' to talk. It should be obvious what this guy is attempting
>to do, successful or not.
>The sort of hostile and uninviting environment that exists on most of
>these philosophy groups is unbearable, and nothing new. So much for the
>hopes that we might enter into a novel form of expression, even
>"thinking."
Again, unless Mr. Muhlhauser believes translation is impossible, there
should be no connection between Mr. Clark's form of expression, or that
of anyone else, and the content of his message. I'm hardly trying to
suppress anyone's style or idiosynchrisies, but I did want to clarify that
point. And for anyone who's about to jump in and declare the
impossibility of translantion, I'd point out that the majority of us are
reading Heidegger himself IN trnaslation, and that one of our
correspondants ishimself translating his thoughts into English to
email them (Christian Lotz).
>Take it back to the class-rooms; back to the drawing
>board. I know this message isn't making anyone defensive, because I know
>that defensiveness is what characterizes most of what goes on for these
>groups...
[does that make any sense?]
> ...each standing in relation to the other behind the technological
>armoring instead of reaching out and accepting, lovingly, through
>windows, welcoming each other into a new place, into new forms of
>expression.
This is rather feeble stuff. No one reaches out and accepts strangers
lovingly. And besides, "this" isn't a "place" as Mr. Muhlhauser earlier
himself noted. What I judge people to be doing here, and what I am
myself doing here, is trying to undertstand Heidegger, and writing within
the confines of basic politeness. This isn't a Heidegger suppoort group
channel.
(A rebuttal in advance to the charge that I sound like I own this channel:
I don't, and I know I don't. This is all by way of a response to what
I thought was a mischaracterization of my message to Mr. Clark, and what
I thought was a poor interpretation of the purpose of the channel.}
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
has written:
>The Internet is a joke. It's this sort of marginization of new attempts
>at expression, and the replication of the exact sort of philosophic
>activity that occurs in up-tight graduate class-rooms that leads me to
>believe that nothing new is going on, especially not the sort of
>"thinking" that should be taking place.
If Mr. Muhlhauser doesn't like my curt writing style, that doesn't bother
me in the least. I was writing to Mr. Clark not in disdain, as my
letter should clearly show, nor in reprimand, but because I was
interested enough in what I could make of his comments that I wanted to
understand him. And one has good reason to suspect strange writing,
because people often enough pull strange tricks to get attention on news
groups. Further, even if my letter indicated the greatest intellectual
vacuousness, it wouldn't reflect at all on the quality
of thinking on this circuit. Finally, isn't there a limit to the new
forms of expression one can accept? If the person writes in binary
coding, he may really be expressing himself "authentically" [sic], but
isn't it natural to become a little irritated at the arduaous process of
decoding his "expression". In Mr. Clark's case I know my first instinct
is just to delete the message rather than puzzle over it for a reward of
only three or four sentences. Sometimes that's what I do.
>This is not to celebrate the sort of "post-apocalyptic"? disruption
>which is being criticized above, but I don't think anyone on the list is
>in any 'place' to talk. It should be obvious what this guy is attempting
>to do, successful or not.
>The sort of hostile and uninviting environment that exists on most of
>these philosophy groups is unbearable, and nothing new. So much for the
>hopes that we might enter into a novel form of expression, even
>"thinking."
Again, unless Mr. Muhlhauser believes translation is impossible, there
should be no connection between Mr. Clark's form of expression, or that
of anyone else, and the content of his message. I'm hardly trying to
suppress anyone's style or idiosynchrisies, but I did want to clarify that
point. And for anyone who's about to jump in and declare the
impossibility of translantion, I'd point out that the majority of us are
reading Heidegger himself IN trnaslation, and that one of our
correspondants ishimself translating his thoughts into English to
email them (Christian Lotz).
>Take it back to the class-rooms; back to the drawing
>board. I know this message isn't making anyone defensive, because I know
>that defensiveness is what characterizes most of what goes on for these
>groups...
[does that make any sense?]
> ...each standing in relation to the other behind the technological
>armoring instead of reaching out and accepting, lovingly, through
>windows, welcoming each other into a new place, into new forms of
>expression.
This is rather feeble stuff. No one reaches out and accepts strangers
lovingly. And besides, "this" isn't a "place" as Mr. Muhlhauser earlier
himself noted. What I judge people to be doing here, and what I am
myself doing here, is trying to undertstand Heidegger, and writing within
the confines of basic politeness. This isn't a Heidegger suppoort group
channel.
(A rebuttal in advance to the charge that I sound like I own this channel:
I don't, and I know I don't. This is all by way of a response to what
I thought was a mischaracterization of my message to Mr. Clark, and what
I thought was a poor interpretation of the purpose of the channel.}
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---