This in response to Emma Rooksby's response to... recently (Thu, 30 May
1996 04:12):
Thankyou for reminding us of the need to not re-present objections to
certain kinds of statement by "employing propositional logic to reduce
human thoughts to a matter of set-membership". Also thanks for showing up
the paucity of that attempt both in my very application of the technique
and in its poor execution. I have a deep love of mathematics but a deeper
love of thinking. Mathematics may be part of thinking (in the Heideggerian
sense - this is a heideggerlist) but it is only a (non-mathematical) part.
It is a-part. It belongs to thinking but is not thinking. My concern is
*not* whether it might be possible or interesting to represent Heideggerian
thought (or as Emma puts it - existential conditions) - there is no thing
modern mathematical-man can not do, does not find inter-resting, can not
use and ab-use. In mathematical-metaphorical terms, my question is whether
the sail can function as a ship, and if by some chance it reckons it can,
whether it should and what kind of ship or sailing would result from such a
metonymic game-play. Perhaps the relationship between mathematics (which I
am taking always in the sense of the greek mathesis and not in some merely
arithmological sense) is more that of synecoche whereupon the/a quality of
thinking might be mathematical but thinking is not mathematics nor the
realm of mathematical operations. This deserves some deep thought if not
throat, before rushing into mathematical formalisation of an attempt at
thinking (Being); having said this if we want to 'merely' represent
"existential conditions" then of course we can, but I do not think that
that will 'capture' the thought of the shepherd of Being. Once again we
come up against the business and problem of representation: a business
Heidegger wrote extensively on and (in a nutshell) related strongly to
precisely the mathematicisation of the world through the metaphysics of
technological/mathematical domination. It (re-presentation) is the
pre-cursor to the will to will which is simply the culmination of the era
of Being-as-representation. In such a realm of the total dominion of techne
logos every thing (every representable thing as object or subject) is
merely raw material for the standing reserve of power: supply-of-
patients-for-clinics, concentration-camp inmates-for-the-ovens, rivers-for
hydro-electric-power, countrysides-for-theme-parks-for-tourism,
thinking-for-artificial-intelligence-programs, ...
Sure we can subject any thing to any mode of power. But should we not be
thinking (non-calculatively, non-profitably) about this rather than
im-mediately submitting to the urge to be fascinated by the exercise of
indiscriminate power (sexy to some, but aren't we all violated by the
result?).
I'm sure that this all might seem a mite over the top when all that is at
stake is the interesting possibility of producing mathematical analyses of
some-one's writing (him self apparently mathematically trained). I suppose
my main worry id that mathematics is wonderful and just if it is allowed to
concern it self with just its own (subject matter) but when it (as it is
bound to feel the need) casts its gaze on the business of such as thinking
then it becomes a server in the service of total power (madness) and what
might have been wonderful becomes a mad runaway train (thought is not).
One final point: mathematical notions of "certainty" and "precision" are
just that: I think Heidegger's thought is precise precisely not in that
sense. This is exceedingly difficult to exemplify simply because our whole
culture is geared (notice the metaphor) to mathematical hege-monies of most
of nearly every thing (but never of thinghood it self). Also I am at my
limit for now. Will think further.
So, thanks for the valuable points raised but I still... think that Being
gives maths not maths Being...
>from the sea of possibilities
MP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
1996 04:12):
Thankyou for reminding us of the need to not re-present objections to
certain kinds of statement by "employing propositional logic to reduce
human thoughts to a matter of set-membership". Also thanks for showing up
the paucity of that attempt both in my very application of the technique
and in its poor execution. I have a deep love of mathematics but a deeper
love of thinking. Mathematics may be part of thinking (in the Heideggerian
sense - this is a heideggerlist) but it is only a (non-mathematical) part.
It is a-part. It belongs to thinking but is not thinking. My concern is
*not* whether it might be possible or interesting to represent Heideggerian
thought (or as Emma puts it - existential conditions) - there is no thing
modern mathematical-man can not do, does not find inter-resting, can not
use and ab-use. In mathematical-metaphorical terms, my question is whether
the sail can function as a ship, and if by some chance it reckons it can,
whether it should and what kind of ship or sailing would result from such a
metonymic game-play. Perhaps the relationship between mathematics (which I
am taking always in the sense of the greek mathesis and not in some merely
arithmological sense) is more that of synecoche whereupon the/a quality of
thinking might be mathematical but thinking is not mathematics nor the
realm of mathematical operations. This deserves some deep thought if not
throat, before rushing into mathematical formalisation of an attempt at
thinking (Being); having said this if we want to 'merely' represent
"existential conditions" then of course we can, but I do not think that
that will 'capture' the thought of the shepherd of Being. Once again we
come up against the business and problem of representation: a business
Heidegger wrote extensively on and (in a nutshell) related strongly to
precisely the mathematicisation of the world through the metaphysics of
technological/mathematical domination. It (re-presentation) is the
pre-cursor to the will to will which is simply the culmination of the era
of Being-as-representation. In such a realm of the total dominion of techne
logos every thing (every representable thing as object or subject) is
merely raw material for the standing reserve of power: supply-of-
patients-for-clinics, concentration-camp inmates-for-the-ovens, rivers-for
hydro-electric-power, countrysides-for-theme-parks-for-tourism,
thinking-for-artificial-intelligence-programs, ...
Sure we can subject any thing to any mode of power. But should we not be
thinking (non-calculatively, non-profitably) about this rather than
im-mediately submitting to the urge to be fascinated by the exercise of
indiscriminate power (sexy to some, but aren't we all violated by the
result?).
I'm sure that this all might seem a mite over the top when all that is at
stake is the interesting possibility of producing mathematical analyses of
some-one's writing (him self apparently mathematically trained). I suppose
my main worry id that mathematics is wonderful and just if it is allowed to
concern it self with just its own (subject matter) but when it (as it is
bound to feel the need) casts its gaze on the business of such as thinking
then it becomes a server in the service of total power (madness) and what
might have been wonderful becomes a mad runaway train (thought is not).
One final point: mathematical notions of "certainty" and "precision" are
just that: I think Heidegger's thought is precise precisely not in that
sense. This is exceedingly difficult to exemplify simply because our whole
culture is geared (notice the metaphor) to mathematical hege-monies of most
of nearly every thing (but never of thinghood it self). Also I am at my
limit for now. Will think further.
So, thanks for the valuable points raised but I still... think that Being
gives maths not maths Being...
>from the sea of possibilities
MP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---