>From: artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx (M.Eldred_artefact)
> Zen is not a tradition or practice of thinking and thus also not a thinking of
>beyng.
Sorry, disagree, only perhaps it is only semantics.
>The School of Athens is a painting,
One is.
>or to be more hermeneutically generous,
>was the beginnings of the metaphysical tradition, whose destiny it was to think the
>beyng of beings (to on hei on).
I was referring to Plato, who is surely the start of the obscuring of Being. My
fault for being lazy. Still, were not the earlier (ancient greek) philosophers
closer to Heidegger? Metaphysics starts with Plato, not earlier? (Literally, with
Aristotle).
>Institutions may well be and sometimes
>are the sites of the thinking of beyng, but institutions as institutions are by no
>means such sites.
I guess we differ on semantics. For me, an institution should not be the destroyer
of genuine thinking but the holder of such. At least an authentic institution. The
current Western idea of an institution is not necessarily my idea of one. (hmm idea
springs up regards Wittgenstein and the German word for institute, here, but that is
perhaps too tangential).
> Erik Champion writes further, quoting me once again: "'Thus it is useless in any
>institutional context.' Yet it appears there. And so did Heidegger, someone who
>wanted and became Rector." Where it was indeed useless. And further: "i was talking
>about intention as used in so-called Anglo-American writings on philosophy of art."
>I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the context. I took intention in the philosophical
>sense of a directedness of consciousness towards entities. So I don't understand
>what you're getting at.
Cor, lashed twice! If I could just clear your incisive whip from out of my trembling
electromic mout for a second, two points.
1. An example does not entail a conclusive proof.
2. If Margolis is a philosopher (ie in "the philosophical sense") then so is the
word "intention", and the phrase "intentionalist attitude". He and others talk about
it, not just little non-philosophical me. may i expound my little viewpoint on its
possible relevance to Heidegger?
> Shane Denson writes: "I would like to hear whether anyone else sees/ does not see
>the similarities between Heidegger and Taoism." I have to pass on the combination
>Heidegger and Taoism, but on the similarities between the thinking of beyng and Zen
>it has struck me that when Japanese authors with a Zen background write in a
>Heideggerian context, I sense they are coming from an entirely different tradition,
>despite tantalizing affinities. The parasyntactic mode of the Japanese language
>contrasts with the discursive traditions of Western language/thinking. As far as I
>know, there is no thinking of the difference between beyng and beings, i.e. beings
>as such, in any Eastern tradition. As far as I know, Heidegger had much more
>contact with visitors from Japan than from China. He had a series of Japanese
>students in Freiburg. The Japanese, it seems, were attracted to Heidegger by the
>fact that only with his thinking could one begin to see what the Western tradition
>of thinking as a whole was and is - by virtue of the step back.
I have a book by a Zen author, apparently a friend of Heidegger. i have said nothing
before as I do not wish to be drawn into this fascinating (and thus time-stealing)
discussion. Only, Zen relates to Buddhism, and the latter to Tao. At least I see it
that way. How?
> Thinking comes from listening, not the other way round.
I guess I would have seen more synergy and synchronicity and less succession here.
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 ---
> Zen is not a tradition or practice of thinking and thus also not a thinking of
>beyng.
Sorry, disagree, only perhaps it is only semantics.
>The School of Athens is a painting,
One is.
>or to be more hermeneutically generous,
>was the beginnings of the metaphysical tradition, whose destiny it was to think the
>beyng of beings (to on hei on).
I was referring to Plato, who is surely the start of the obscuring of Being. My
fault for being lazy. Still, were not the earlier (ancient greek) philosophers
closer to Heidegger? Metaphysics starts with Plato, not earlier? (Literally, with
Aristotle).
>Institutions may well be and sometimes
>are the sites of the thinking of beyng, but institutions as institutions are by no
>means such sites.
I guess we differ on semantics. For me, an institution should not be the destroyer
of genuine thinking but the holder of such. At least an authentic institution. The
current Western idea of an institution is not necessarily my idea of one. (hmm idea
springs up regards Wittgenstein and the German word for institute, here, but that is
perhaps too tangential).
> Erik Champion writes further, quoting me once again: "'Thus it is useless in any
>institutional context.' Yet it appears there. And so did Heidegger, someone who
>wanted and became Rector." Where it was indeed useless. And further: "i was talking
>about intention as used in so-called Anglo-American writings on philosophy of art."
>I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the context. I took intention in the philosophical
>sense of a directedness of consciousness towards entities. So I don't understand
>what you're getting at.
Cor, lashed twice! If I could just clear your incisive whip from out of my trembling
electromic mout for a second, two points.
1. An example does not entail a conclusive proof.
2. If Margolis is a philosopher (ie in "the philosophical sense") then so is the
word "intention", and the phrase "intentionalist attitude". He and others talk about
it, not just little non-philosophical me. may i expound my little viewpoint on its
possible relevance to Heidegger?
> Shane Denson writes: "I would like to hear whether anyone else sees/ does not see
>the similarities between Heidegger and Taoism." I have to pass on the combination
>Heidegger and Taoism, but on the similarities between the thinking of beyng and Zen
>it has struck me that when Japanese authors with a Zen background write in a
>Heideggerian context, I sense they are coming from an entirely different tradition,
>despite tantalizing affinities. The parasyntactic mode of the Japanese language
>contrasts with the discursive traditions of Western language/thinking. As far as I
>know, there is no thinking of the difference between beyng and beings, i.e. beings
>as such, in any Eastern tradition. As far as I know, Heidegger had much more
>contact with visitors from Japan than from China. He had a series of Japanese
>students in Freiburg. The Japanese, it seems, were attracted to Heidegger by the
>fact that only with his thinking could one begin to see what the Western tradition
>of thinking as a whole was and is - by virtue of the step back.
I have a book by a Zen author, apparently a friend of Heidegger. i have said nothing
before as I do not wish to be drawn into this fascinating (and thus time-stealing)
discussion. Only, Zen relates to Buddhism, and the latter to Tao. At least I see it
that way. How?
> Thinking comes from listening, not the other way round.
I guess I would have seen more synergy and synchronicity and less succession here.
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 ---