>From: pennamacoor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael D. Pennamacoor)
> The poles of the "bifurcation" spoken of here are not oppositional, no need for
>"versus" here. Indeed as is said above, thinkers can and do philosophise and
>philosophers can and do think; but if we substitute 'bake' and 'baker' for 'think'
>and 'thinker' then the statement still holds. Not being facetious: the statement
>does not say anything essential concerning thinking and philosophising. Heidegger
>in discussing Nietzsche's metaphysics of the will-to-power says:
>
> "The order (of the planetary management of the earth that is pre-figured by
>Nietzsche's metaphysics) no longer needs philosophy because philosophy is already
>its foundation. But with the end of philosophy, thinking is not also at its end,
>but in transition to another beginning." ('The End of Philosophy', 1973, Souvenir
>Press, pp.95-96)
>
> There is no 'bifurcation' of thinking and philosophy, these are not separate
>categories for bundling up into neatly packageable intellectual commodities, there
>is no versus between brand-names of intellectual or spiritual products. As
>Heidegger so clearly perceives: it is only in the greatest extremis of total
>technological calculative 'thinking' that 'philosophy' can terminate (lose all real
>power) and be merely seen as one further cultural category (like baking or fishing
>or war-gaming or...) to be managed and even taught and celebrated to ever greater
>numbers (mass education).
I guess I would rather be mass educated than not educated at all. Institutional
education can also be great (as I said before) insofar as it can de-institutionalise
itself in the mind of the rebellious/self-directed/thinking student.
Perhaps I am just in the pay of the state, and can never see the reverse must only
be true-perhaps I need to live the life of Schopenhauer in order to see your point.
Then again the wise man, in terms of how the Greeks saw wisdom, would probably not
sit on the hill all day. He (or she) would get involved. Perhaps even from within
the evil institution.
> Please, we must bear in mind (whoops) that Heidegger's notion of thinking
>(something we are still not doing) is more like an approach at nearness to Being
>and not so much like a finely-spun and articulate cogitation (somehow going on in
>the 'head').
Well I might be spinning, I might not be thinking concrete Heidegger: but one point
of interest was a (mental) confrontation or potential turning several years ago. An
Indian gentleman told me ( I never met him before) that all Westerners lacked
spirituality, they did not have any at all. I said nothing, read some Kierkegaard
again, and thought, must it or the absence of it be so obvious to any one else?
Indeed, by definition, can it be? Ditto Heideggerean thinking.
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 ---
> The poles of the "bifurcation" spoken of here are not oppositional, no need for
>"versus" here. Indeed as is said above, thinkers can and do philosophise and
>philosophers can and do think; but if we substitute 'bake' and 'baker' for 'think'
>and 'thinker' then the statement still holds. Not being facetious: the statement
>does not say anything essential concerning thinking and philosophising. Heidegger
>in discussing Nietzsche's metaphysics of the will-to-power says:
>
> "The order (of the planetary management of the earth that is pre-figured by
>Nietzsche's metaphysics) no longer needs philosophy because philosophy is already
>its foundation. But with the end of philosophy, thinking is not also at its end,
>but in transition to another beginning." ('The End of Philosophy', 1973, Souvenir
>Press, pp.95-96)
>
> There is no 'bifurcation' of thinking and philosophy, these are not separate
>categories for bundling up into neatly packageable intellectual commodities, there
>is no versus between brand-names of intellectual or spiritual products. As
>Heidegger so clearly perceives: it is only in the greatest extremis of total
>technological calculative 'thinking' that 'philosophy' can terminate (lose all real
>power) and be merely seen as one further cultural category (like baking or fishing
>or war-gaming or...) to be managed and even taught and celebrated to ever greater
>numbers (mass education).
I guess I would rather be mass educated than not educated at all. Institutional
education can also be great (as I said before) insofar as it can de-institutionalise
itself in the mind of the rebellious/self-directed/thinking student.
Perhaps I am just in the pay of the state, and can never see the reverse must only
be true-perhaps I need to live the life of Schopenhauer in order to see your point.
Then again the wise man, in terms of how the Greeks saw wisdom, would probably not
sit on the hill all day. He (or she) would get involved. Perhaps even from within
the evil institution.
> Please, we must bear in mind (whoops) that Heidegger's notion of thinking
>(something we are still not doing) is more like an approach at nearness to Being
>and not so much like a finely-spun and articulate cogitation (somehow going on in
>the 'head').
Well I might be spinning, I might not be thinking concrete Heidegger: but one point
of interest was a (mental) confrontation or potential turning several years ago. An
Indian gentleman told me ( I never met him before) that all Westerners lacked
spirituality, they did not have any at all. I said nothing, read some Kierkegaard
again, and thought, must it or the absence of it be so obvious to any one else?
Indeed, by definition, can it be? Ditto Heideggerean thinking.
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 ---