>Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 00:41:00 +1200
>From: artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx (M.Eldred_artefact)
>Subject: art of philosophy and thinking
>To: pennamacoor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Cc: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Reply-to: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>I find myself agreeing with Michael P.
>
> erik champion asks a lot of questions, not all of which I can answer off-hand.
>Concerning whether Heidegger's thinking is intentionalist, one would have to say
>definitely not. For one thing, Heidegger's transcendence (the transcendence of
>being-in-the-world) overcomes Husserl's intentional transcendence, i.e. the
>relatedness of consciousness to objects; cf. e.g. the Zollikoner Seminare where
>this is admirably spelt out. If intention is taken in the sense of will, then
>Heidegger's thinking goes through an overcoming or getting-over of will, a movement
>that crytallizes largely out of his having it out with Nietzsche in the thirties.
I find this perexplexing-interesting. I am not talkin of Schopenhauerian will via
Nietzshe, rather, one's encounter and response to destiny. I really need to think
about this- I did not expect anyone to mention Husserl, i was talking about
intention as used in so-called Anglo-American writings on philosophy of art.
>Thus it is useless in any institutional context.
Yet it appears there. And so did Heidegger, someone who wanted and became Rector.
> Allow me to warn against sociological and psychological readings of Heidegger's
>texts, which sail past the task of thinking without sighting it. Instead, one
>starts "explaining" things which, as one thinker has pointed out, is an arbitrary
>and vacuous enterprise.
One may also "reveal". As Heidegger did in his explanations of others; even if he
does not call them that.
> Regarding Heidegger's thinking on the artwork, one of the aspects I find most
>questionable is the hierarchy of the arts presented, with poetry on top. 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?
He does not say that it is on top, or that it is poetry as such, please excuse me
while I find the quote for you. (NB, it is also seen as a problem for Hegel).
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 ---
>From: artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx (M.Eldred_artefact)
>Subject: art of philosophy and thinking
>To: pennamacoor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Cc: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Reply-to: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>I find myself agreeing with Michael P.
>
> erik champion asks a lot of questions, not all of which I can answer off-hand.
>Concerning whether Heidegger's thinking is intentionalist, one would have to say
>definitely not. For one thing, Heidegger's transcendence (the transcendence of
>being-in-the-world) overcomes Husserl's intentional transcendence, i.e. the
>relatedness of consciousness to objects; cf. e.g. the Zollikoner Seminare where
>this is admirably spelt out. If intention is taken in the sense of will, then
>Heidegger's thinking goes through an overcoming or getting-over of will, a movement
>that crytallizes largely out of his having it out with Nietzsche in the thirties.
I find this perexplexing-interesting. I am not talkin of Schopenhauerian will via
Nietzshe, rather, one's encounter and response to destiny. I really need to think
about this- I did not expect anyone to mention Husserl, i was talking about
intention as used in so-called Anglo-American writings on philosophy of art.
>Thus it is useless in any institutional context.
Yet it appears there. And so did Heidegger, someone who wanted and became Rector.
> Allow me to warn against sociological and psychological readings of Heidegger's
>texts, which sail past the task of thinking without sighting it. Instead, one
>starts "explaining" things which, as one thinker has pointed out, is an arbitrary
>and vacuous enterprise.
One may also "reveal". As Heidegger did in his explanations of others; even if he
does not call them that.
> Regarding Heidegger's thinking on the artwork, one of the aspects I find most
>questionable is the hierarchy of the arts presented, with poetry on top. 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?
He does not say that it is on top, or that it is poetry as such, please excuse me
while I find the quote for you. (NB, it is also seen as a problem for Hegel).
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 ---