On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Laurence Paul Hemming wrote:
> On the 2nd February, Michael Antonucci wrote:
>
> >I understand the instinct to admire a raging iconoclast who disrupts a
> >slow and difficult consensus building process with Sturm und Strang.
> 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?
>
> 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
>
> >How do we decide what is and what is not idle chatter? How does the
> >judgment operate, according to what understanding, situation,
> >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 ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---