Could it be that thinking on this list flounders when it steps out of a
certain Heideggerian "muscularity" or, if you like, rigor? I refer here
to the fact that really substantive interchange seems to happen
successfully when the engagement is very close to the Heideggerian text,
while when it pulls away from that, and when it gets more personal, it
loses a really dialogical quality.
_______________________________________________________________
The survivors who spoke of the "electricity", the "lights", the
"metal tables" and the "needles" had a shrieking question mark
in their eyes that wasn't answered by what what we were reading
in the growing volume of material that was being published.
--excerpt from The Stone Angels survivors' journal
Vol. 6 Thunder Bay, Ontario
_______________________________________________________________
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---