> Heidegger not so recently wrote:
>
> "It is towards the great essence of man that we are thinking, inasmuch as man's
>essence belongs to the essence of Being and is needed by Being to keep safe the
>coming to presence of Being into its truth." (from 'The Turning' in 'The Question
>Concerning Technology & other essays', 1977, Harper Colophon, p.40)
>
> This not the only place that Heidegger refers to the uncanny and special
>relationship between (the essence of) man and Being -- if indeed there is any
>'between' as between things or objects. But I wanted to point to this persistent,
>although not always stated in quotable form, theme recurring in Heidegger's
>thought.
Thank you for the quote, my fault for not remembering it. Still, the idea of being
"needed by Being" startles me. Also, (tanngential query) I do not know how, or if,
East Asian thought sees Being as needed by being.Does it, need it?
Further, this quote reveals a difference between Idea and Essence, the latter for
Heidegger being so important.
As to uncanny, and the canny, it seems quite perplexing to me, as to how they relate
> In the same essay as the above quote, Heidegger goes on to suggest the primordial
>priority of language.... This primal
>corresponding, expressly carried out, is thinking." (ibid, pp 40-41)
Hmm, never disagreed. I just saw language as more than a medium, perhaps some of the
differences have been semantic.
> Thinking is the exccedingly complex, bewilderingly simple "primal corresponding"
>to Being. The business of collective versus individual is a non-starter. Thinking
>could be the world-shaking hammer-blows of History and Destiny or the quietest
>nurturing of the perfect gardener who seems to merely watch over things. Thinking
>is thanking (Being).
Not sure it answers my question, is not thinking as distinct from the herd a form of
the individual distinct from the collective: is not hypokeimenon an
extra-linguistical phenomenon that by its crashing at the outer limits of language
show us more clearly the boundaries (as in the presence) of our world?
If Heidegger sees the individual versus the collective as a "non-starter", how does
he distinguish his philosophy from that of Hegel's World Spirit as in some form of
world-mind/spirit/geist: some form of future world-consciousness? Or doesn't he?
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 ---
>
> "It is towards the great essence of man that we are thinking, inasmuch as man's
>essence belongs to the essence of Being and is needed by Being to keep safe the
>coming to presence of Being into its truth." (from 'The Turning' in 'The Question
>Concerning Technology & other essays', 1977, Harper Colophon, p.40)
>
> This not the only place that Heidegger refers to the uncanny and special
>relationship between (the essence of) man and Being -- if indeed there is any
>'between' as between things or objects. But I wanted to point to this persistent,
>although not always stated in quotable form, theme recurring in Heidegger's
>thought.
Thank you for the quote, my fault for not remembering it. Still, the idea of being
"needed by Being" startles me. Also, (tanngential query) I do not know how, or if,
East Asian thought sees Being as needed by being.Does it, need it?
Further, this quote reveals a difference between Idea and Essence, the latter for
Heidegger being so important.
As to uncanny, and the canny, it seems quite perplexing to me, as to how they relate
> In the same essay as the above quote, Heidegger goes on to suggest the primordial
>priority of language.... This primal
>corresponding, expressly carried out, is thinking." (ibid, pp 40-41)
Hmm, never disagreed. I just saw language as more than a medium, perhaps some of the
differences have been semantic.
> Thinking is the exccedingly complex, bewilderingly simple "primal corresponding"
>to Being. The business of collective versus individual is a non-starter. Thinking
>could be the world-shaking hammer-blows of History and Destiny or the quietest
>nurturing of the perfect gardener who seems to merely watch over things. Thinking
>is thanking (Being).
Not sure it answers my question, is not thinking as distinct from the herd a form of
the individual distinct from the collective: is not hypokeimenon an
extra-linguistical phenomenon that by its crashing at the outer limits of language
show us more clearly the boundaries (as in the presence) of our world?
If Heidegger sees the individual versus the collective as a "non-starter", how does
he distinguish his philosophy from that of Hegel's World Spirit as in some form of
world-mind/spirit/geist: some form of future world-consciousness? Or doesn't he?
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 ---