>From: pennamacoor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael D. Pennamacoor)
> Well, Heidegger's most important 'turn': from concern with beings to concern with
>Being, could be construed as looking away from the material life of things and
>upwards towards the creator god or towards the godly. But, for Heidegger, I think,
>god and the godly might constitute the highest being but not Being and perhaps more
>radically: precisely not-Being.
Authentic essence involves dwelling.
Heidegger basically agrees with Nietzsche that the >gods have fled and contemporary
religiosity does not/can not fill such a vacuum but >even if it did/could it would
still stand in front and cover Being. Of course, an >absent being can have some
affinity with what is not-being (Being) and thus much >contemporary theology has
some things in common with Heidegger's later thought and >in deed has to some extent
obtained from it. But ultimately I would suggest >strongly that the thinking of
Being is not and precisely not theology (it is also >not 'philosophy' or 'science'
(as in ontology) and it is not onto-theology.
Have you not read of Heidegger's death; know you not where "caritas" came from?
> >The very simplicity of the thinking of being is the hardest (lightest)
> >thing (not) to grasp. Thus it is useless in any institutional context.
Zen is "revealed" by monks: are they institutionalised? Was the School of Athens an
institution? Can institutes by being how they are, reveal to us that which they are
not?
> Yes the unbearable lightness of Being. It can not be grasped be cause it (is it an
>it?) is not (a graspable) thing. It is the is-ness of is. It: not being. It: not
>use-able. It: the source of all use-ability. It: use-less. So who cares? Perhaps
>think-ing is care-ing: the thinker cares for Being. The thinker brings Being to a
>careful nurturing (not using). Like a (perfect) gardener. In what realm of being
>does this 'gardening' take place? The fruit of such human-thinking labours is
>manifested primarily (but no mean exclusively) in language, in speeches
>(articulations), in utterances (outer-ances).
Language is the house not the outhouse of Being.
> Michael Eldred later asks:
>
> >How is
> >it that poetic language has the task first and foremost of opening being and
> >wresting a draft of the being of beings from hiddenness?
> Language is the fore-most 'medium' for the 'fruition' of Being and the art-work is
>the fore-most site for the appearance of the experience of Being, thus, the
>linguistic art-work has a priveleged position in the revelation of Being in
>thinking. It needn't be poetry as such. Just the poetic. Poeisis. I feel as though
>this is nonetheless inadequate to properly answer the question as to the priority
>of the poetic in the opening of Being. Perhaps Heidegger uses the poetic as a kind
>of model or Idea of Art as the site of revelation-work?
Not Idea! Through the work we dwell in our world. World worlds. Site is not enough,
art places us in terms of place. Boundaries are boudaries of presence rather than of
Cartesian space, the work melds throwness, givens, and intentions (chosen destiny)
into one's world as it is revealed to us. World worlds.
erik champion M.Arch
schools of design & performing arts
UNITEC
tel: 64 9 815 4321 ext 7140
fax: 64 9 846 7369
email: echampion@xxxxxxxxxxxx
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> Well, Heidegger's most important 'turn': from concern with beings to concern with
>Being, could be construed as looking away from the material life of things and
>upwards towards the creator god or towards the godly. But, for Heidegger, I think,
>god and the godly might constitute the highest being but not Being and perhaps more
>radically: precisely not-Being.
Authentic essence involves dwelling.
Heidegger basically agrees with Nietzsche that the >gods have fled and contemporary
religiosity does not/can not fill such a vacuum but >even if it did/could it would
still stand in front and cover Being. Of course, an >absent being can have some
affinity with what is not-being (Being) and thus much >contemporary theology has
some things in common with Heidegger's later thought and >in deed has to some extent
obtained from it. But ultimately I would suggest >strongly that the thinking of
Being is not and precisely not theology (it is also >not 'philosophy' or 'science'
(as in ontology) and it is not onto-theology.
Have you not read of Heidegger's death; know you not where "caritas" came from?
> >The very simplicity of the thinking of being is the hardest (lightest)
> >thing (not) to grasp. Thus it is useless in any institutional context.
Zen is "revealed" by monks: are they institutionalised? Was the School of Athens an
institution? Can institutes by being how they are, reveal to us that which they are
not?
> Yes the unbearable lightness of Being. It can not be grasped be cause it (is it an
>it?) is not (a graspable) thing. It is the is-ness of is. It: not being. It: not
>use-able. It: the source of all use-ability. It: use-less. So who cares? Perhaps
>think-ing is care-ing: the thinker cares for Being. The thinker brings Being to a
>careful nurturing (not using). Like a (perfect) gardener. In what realm of being
>does this 'gardening' take place? The fruit of such human-thinking labours is
>manifested primarily (but no mean exclusively) in language, in speeches
>(articulations), in utterances (outer-ances).
Language is the house not the outhouse of Being.
> Michael Eldred later asks:
>
> >How is
> >it that poetic language has the task first and foremost of opening being and
> >wresting a draft of the being of beings from hiddenness?
> Language is the fore-most 'medium' for the 'fruition' of Being and the art-work is
>the fore-most site for the appearance of the experience of Being, thus, the
>linguistic art-work has a priveleged position in the revelation of Being in
>thinking. It needn't be poetry as such. Just the poetic. Poeisis. I feel as though
>this is nonetheless inadequate to properly answer the question as to the priority
>of the poetic in the opening of Being. Perhaps Heidegger uses the poetic as a kind
>of model or Idea of Art as the site of revelation-work?
Not Idea! Through the work we dwell in our world. World worlds. Site is not enough,
art places us in terms of place. Boundaries are boudaries of presence rather than of
Cartesian space, the work melds throwness, givens, and intentions (chosen destiny)
into one's world as it is revealed to us. World worlds.
erik champion M.Arch
schools of design & performing arts
UNITEC
tel: 64 9 815 4321 ext 7140
fax: 64 9 846 7369
email: echampion@xxxxxxxxxxxx
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---