On the 2nd February, Michael Antonucci wrote:
>I understand the instinct to admire a raging iconoclast who disrupts a=20
>slow and difficult consensus building process with Sturm und Strang. =20
in yet another posting concerning the interminable drivel that has =
dominated the discussion here, reflecting nothing other than the rather =
small-world preoccupations of liberal North America. (And surely Strang =
is Drang?)
What is it to build a "slow and difficult consensus" in a discussion =
primarily concerned with the work of Martin Heidegger? In what sense =
might we interpret him as encouraging such a thing? Did not in fact he =
stand against the formation of opinion or outlook or understanding as =
"consensus"? Or have I been misreading him for years? If he did stand =
against such a thing, might a little more care and thought, a little =
more self-questioning in our venturing of opinions and questions be =
appropriate?
There is an increasing concern in the study of Heidegger to produce the =
"definitive" answer - to "clean up" the study of this difficult and =
controversial thinker, and so to create a "consensual" discourse to =
which each of us, if we are going to be allowed to participate, must be =
conformed. A "universalisation" of the interpretation of the thought of =
Heidegger, which in its own totality and coherence can "account" for the =
moves he makes, the mistakes, the twists and turns and so forth, and =
bring them into a synthesis which will make them self-evident and =
immediately accessible to all but the dullest amongst us.
Heidegger himself points in the opposite direction: to what is =
"original" (urspruenglich) in my encounter with him: to what in my =
engagement with him and with the Western tradition points me first in =
the direction of thinking - to abandoning the position of apprentice =
toward thinking as such.
Might we have a little less rehearsing of our own preoccupations? Might =
we just allow ourselves to be occupied by the matter at hand?
And in response to Tom Blancato, who wrote=20
>How do we decide what is and what is not idle chatter? How does the=20
>judgment operate, according to what understanding, situation,=20
>interpretive fluency, etc.? Anyone find this as interesting as I do?
I answer No! Until you answer who "we" is, what it is to "decide", what =
is a "judgment" and why do judgments "operate" - in other words, can you =
see no irony at all in that the way you have structured your question =
already pre-determines its possible range of answers. What could =
possibly be interesting about a rehearsal of the standard academic / =
"philosophical" jargon in which to "en-frame" this question.
And finally, who the hell asked Curtis Clark whether there was something =
wrong with his keyboard. Now we'll never shut him up. As if we haven't =
had enough dysfunctional mangled language already :)
Laurence
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>I understand the instinct to admire a raging iconoclast who disrupts a=20
>slow and difficult consensus building process with Sturm und Strang. =20
in yet another posting concerning the interminable drivel that has =
dominated the discussion here, reflecting nothing other than the rather =
small-world preoccupations of liberal North America. (And surely Strang =
is Drang?)
What is it to build a "slow and difficult consensus" in a discussion =
primarily concerned with the work of Martin Heidegger? In what sense =
might we interpret him as encouraging such a thing? Did not in fact he =
stand against the formation of opinion or outlook or understanding as =
"consensus"? Or have I been misreading him for years? If he did stand =
against such a thing, might a little more care and thought, a little =
more self-questioning in our venturing of opinions and questions be =
appropriate?
There is an increasing concern in the study of Heidegger to produce the =
"definitive" answer - to "clean up" the study of this difficult and =
controversial thinker, and so to create a "consensual" discourse to =
which each of us, if we are going to be allowed to participate, must be =
conformed. A "universalisation" of the interpretation of the thought of =
Heidegger, which in its own totality and coherence can "account" for the =
moves he makes, the mistakes, the twists and turns and so forth, and =
bring them into a synthesis which will make them self-evident and =
immediately accessible to all but the dullest amongst us.
Heidegger himself points in the opposite direction: to what is =
"original" (urspruenglich) in my encounter with him: to what in my =
engagement with him and with the Western tradition points me first in =
the direction of thinking - to abandoning the position of apprentice =
toward thinking as such.
Might we have a little less rehearsing of our own preoccupations? Might =
we just allow ourselves to be occupied by the matter at hand?
And in response to Tom Blancato, who wrote=20
>How do we decide what is and what is not idle chatter? How does the=20
>judgment operate, according to what understanding, situation,=20
>interpretive fluency, etc.? Anyone find this as interesting as I do?
I answer No! Until you answer who "we" is, what it is to "decide", what =
is a "judgment" and why do judgments "operate" - in other words, can you =
see no irony at all in that the way you have structured your question =
already pre-determines its possible range of answers. What could =
possibly be interesting about a rehearsal of the standard academic / =
"philosophical" jargon in which to "en-frame" this question.
And finally, who the hell asked Curtis Clark whether there was something =
wrong with his keyboard. Now we'll never shut him up. As if we haven't =
had enough dysfunctional mangled language already :)
Laurence
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---