Michael Eldredlocks recently wroted:
>But thinking and winking are also related and the saying of the thinker of
>beyng
>is a winking on into the coworld (togetherness) of beyng's translation into
>language.
Could we move from winking to blinking and from wanking to blank-ing? If we
could then we could be on (Heideggerian)Nietzschean territory. The last man
(the last man laughs longest) forms ideas by blinking, reactions to the
glitter of bright superficiality (maybe just to the camera with flash --
every thing is just a shot, a snap, a quick one while he's away and not
looking...).
"We have invented happiness, say the last men, and blink." (Nietzsche)
Blinking:
"The congresses and conferences, committees and sub-committees -- are they
anything other than the blinking organisations of blinking arrangements of
distrust and treachery?" (says Heidegger 'What is called thinking', 1968,
Harper & Row)
Blinking is blank-thinking in the face of the flash. Winking is blank-blinking.
(An aside -- just then my entire collection of old and revered
Heideggerbooks collapsed from the shelf on which they were shelved and fell
to the floor -- on the way to gravitas)
By blinking-thinking we lastmen render the long-lasting blasting deceptions
of things. We wank about greeting every thing with our deceptive allos and
pretend allies and static hyperstatic and call it with a wink a decent
setup of a world. Winking-wanking-blinking-blanking is good punkish fun but
what of the "coworld", what of Beyng and its trans-lation. Whilst it is
blinking true that wanking is "radiating one's own brilliance" the call to
radiate as such is not of it self a brilliance-in-calling: per-haps just a
flash in the pants.
One wank does not make a thank.
let us blink
Mp
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>But thinking and winking are also related and the saying of the thinker of
>beyng
>is a winking on into the coworld (togetherness) of beyng's translation into
>language.
Could we move from winking to blinking and from wanking to blank-ing? If we
could then we could be on (Heideggerian)Nietzschean territory. The last man
(the last man laughs longest) forms ideas by blinking, reactions to the
glitter of bright superficiality (maybe just to the camera with flash --
every thing is just a shot, a snap, a quick one while he's away and not
looking...).
"We have invented happiness, say the last men, and blink." (Nietzsche)
Blinking:
"The congresses and conferences, committees and sub-committees -- are they
anything other than the blinking organisations of blinking arrangements of
distrust and treachery?" (says Heidegger 'What is called thinking', 1968,
Harper & Row)
Blinking is blank-thinking in the face of the flash. Winking is blank-blinking.
(An aside -- just then my entire collection of old and revered
Heideggerbooks collapsed from the shelf on which they were shelved and fell
to the floor -- on the way to gravitas)
By blinking-thinking we lastmen render the long-lasting blasting deceptions
of things. We wank about greeting every thing with our deceptive allos and
pretend allies and static hyperstatic and call it with a wink a decent
setup of a world. Winking-wanking-blinking-blanking is good punkish fun but
what of the "coworld", what of Beyng and its trans-lation. Whilst it is
blinking true that wanking is "radiating one's own brilliance" the call to
radiate as such is not of it self a brilliance-in-calling: per-haps just a
flash in the pants.
One wank does not make a thank.
let us blink
Mp
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---