>At 10:17 AM 1/10/96 GMT, Antonio Tombolini wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Heidegger seems to
>>>be pointing us towards how language is not only functional but also
>poetic in
>>>the way that it constructs and situates our realities of being"
I like this a lot. Can you elaborate? What's the difference between
'constructing' and 'situating' for you here? Does the phrase "our
realities of being" refer to something like 'what we take to be our
reality'? I.e., the not *really* real, but 'the perhaps necessary
appearance of ground' [Ungrund in _IM_]?
Is this 'perhaps necessary appearance of ground' granted to us-as
the reality we receive and construct in and through language-as 'deep' a
reality as there is? Is the metaphysical desire for the Real, the
percussive demand for the 'really real' itself a mistake? And if that is a
mistake, then when it is that the poet responds to in the lingustic
construction of the new? I.e., if 'reality' is no deeper than our
linguistic constuctions (one way to take the 'language is the house of
being' line), then where does historical change come from? Mustn't
something exceed our language, something that then calls for a name, a new
naming, the ongoing linguistic articulations through which historicity
unfolds? Mightn't that which all names rely on, without be able to capture
(or conceptually exhaust), be what Heidegger called Sein-for a while, until
he found that that name had too many 'metaphysial' overtones, and slowly
left it behind as he searched, again and again, for another name
(responding to that which calls inexhaustively for naming but nevertheless
cannot *be* named): Sein-Seyn-SeXin [being written 'under erasure']-Das
Geviert [the fourfold]?
As we struggle to understand the strategy behind Heidegger's
succesive 'renamings' of being we can ask: what is accomplished here? Is
this an opening of thought, the holding open of a 'region of gathering'
(the fourfold), or is the form-of this open region held open-itself closed?
Is there an non-paradoxical way to maintain the openness that calls for
thought, or is the impossibility of finally 'opening' or 'holding-open'
itself what necessitates (without guaranteeing) continuing efforts of
thinking, new namings, or, as Merleau-Ponty put it, "the vigilance that
doesn't let us forget the source of all thought"?
Some thoughts and questions.
Iain
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>>
>>
>>> Heidegger seems to
>>>be pointing us towards how language is not only functional but also
>poetic in
>>>the way that it constructs and situates our realities of being"
I like this a lot. Can you elaborate? What's the difference between
'constructing' and 'situating' for you here? Does the phrase "our
realities of being" refer to something like 'what we take to be our
reality'? I.e., the not *really* real, but 'the perhaps necessary
appearance of ground' [Ungrund in _IM_]?
Is this 'perhaps necessary appearance of ground' granted to us-as
the reality we receive and construct in and through language-as 'deep' a
reality as there is? Is the metaphysical desire for the Real, the
percussive demand for the 'really real' itself a mistake? And if that is a
mistake, then when it is that the poet responds to in the lingustic
construction of the new? I.e., if 'reality' is no deeper than our
linguistic constuctions (one way to take the 'language is the house of
being' line), then where does historical change come from? Mustn't
something exceed our language, something that then calls for a name, a new
naming, the ongoing linguistic articulations through which historicity
unfolds? Mightn't that which all names rely on, without be able to capture
(or conceptually exhaust), be what Heidegger called Sein-for a while, until
he found that that name had too many 'metaphysial' overtones, and slowly
left it behind as he searched, again and again, for another name
(responding to that which calls inexhaustively for naming but nevertheless
cannot *be* named): Sein-Seyn-SeXin [being written 'under erasure']-Das
Geviert [the fourfold]?
As we struggle to understand the strategy behind Heidegger's
succesive 'renamings' of being we can ask: what is accomplished here? Is
this an opening of thought, the holding open of a 'region of gathering'
(the fourfold), or is the form-of this open region held open-itself closed?
Is there an non-paradoxical way to maintain the openness that calls for
thought, or is the impossibility of finally 'opening' or 'holding-open'
itself what necessitates (without guaranteeing) continuing efforts of
thinking, new namings, or, as Merleau-Ponty put it, "the vigilance that
doesn't let us forget the source of all thought"?
Some thoughts and questions.
Iain
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---