Just read "Origin of the Work of Art". I can't get over H's predeliciton
for etymologies expressive of naive sensibility: truth, happening, techne, etc.
The notion that you can access the primordial, by affecting the primitive or naive modality
of thinking seems astoundingly woodenheaded (leaving aside "reactionary").
This method: the controlling use of concrete, sensual /affective
imagery: concealment/unconcealment, thrownness, lighting, horizons, sendings, ...etc.,
is mythopoesis, pre-conceptual ..., mythopoeic "thinking".
(Aristotelian linguistic forms (tho not the conceptual structures, I think), abstractions (essensces)
are conspicuous by omission.) Giving it a pretentious name, transcendental
subjectivity, hardly satisfies the objection: these are merely the archetypal
structures of human consciousness...albeit grotesquely teased and
exaggerated ...never penetrating beyond the empirical (factical, ontical...or whatever).
A mystic's fetishizing of an immature consciousness.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---