Cologne, 20 June 1996
bleep bleep
back from sleep
blink
blank
There's something there in my there!
Entitties! blink
Erik Champion writes:
"perhaps it is only semantics"
What else?
"Well thought is well said, well said is well thought." (M.H. on the craft of
thinking)
And he continues:
"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."
Should and is are far apart. Do you mean holder as surrounding vessel or as
grasper? Can genuine thinking be held? What is an authentic institution? An
institution that corresponds to its essence? What is the essence of an
institution? An institution is instituted, i.e. set up according to an idea of
what it is to be. The should is measured against this idea. Only thinking that
puts into images (vorstellendes Denken) can set up an institution. The thinking
of beyng, if it is anything at all, is not a thinking that puts into images and
that in line with a (fore-seen) idea, it is rather: receptive, waiting thinking
that steps back. It is useless for the set-up of entities, whether in an
institution or elsewhere. Beyng cannot be held or held onto. It can only be
received like a guest. The reception can be prepared by clearing the paths of
thinking-through what has been thought. Perhaps the guest will arrive. Perhaps
not. One may have an inkling that the guest is coming, a presentiment. But the
guest may pass on by.
Prepatory thinking may be institutionalized. But because of the unpredictability
of the guest, there is no way of telling whether it is an authentic institution
or not, or whether the thinking is genuine or not. This is the strife of
thinking in the coworld. Thinking remains essentially ambiguous. There is no
such thing as success in the thinking of beyng, no result to point to as the
proof of the pudding. You go in with empty hands and come out with empty hands.
Your heart may be full of nothingness, singing.
Passing on from the Championist question:
"If we do not employ the distinction 'collective/individual' (consciousness),
how can we distinguish Heidegger from Hegel?"
Michael Pennamacoor-lummy asks
"A second question: what is thought-worthy, what calls for thinking in the
distinction 'collective/individual' especially when we are concerned with
thinking? Do ind.s or coll.s think (H-wise)?"
There would already be something gained (success?) in not mixing Hegel and
Heidegger up with each other. In this context Derrida has rightly shone a
spotlight on the occurrence of spirit in Heidegger's texts.
A third question (at least) calls for (long, slow) thinking: Where is history
located? In consciousness (Bewusstsein)? In being-there (Dasein)? In the
clearing of the wesan (sway) of truth? How can H. say at the beginning of the
Letter on Humanism: "Thinking acts by thinking. This acting is presumably the
most simple and at the same time the highest because it concerns the relation of
being to humans."? Is such acting historical?
blank
bleep
Michael Eldred ° artefact text and translation \\\\\\ '''''''
artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx °°° made by art °°° (( C ~_} [ ° U ° ]
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ (( < *( \_/ )*
vox: (++49 221) 9520 333 fax: (++49 221) 9520 334 | | / \
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
bleep bleep
back from sleep
blink
blank
There's something there in my there!
Entitties! blink
Erik Champion writes:
"perhaps it is only semantics"
What else?
"Well thought is well said, well said is well thought." (M.H. on the craft of
thinking)
And he continues:
"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."
Should and is are far apart. Do you mean holder as surrounding vessel or as
grasper? Can genuine thinking be held? What is an authentic institution? An
institution that corresponds to its essence? What is the essence of an
institution? An institution is instituted, i.e. set up according to an idea of
what it is to be. The should is measured against this idea. Only thinking that
puts into images (vorstellendes Denken) can set up an institution. The thinking
of beyng, if it is anything at all, is not a thinking that puts into images and
that in line with a (fore-seen) idea, it is rather: receptive, waiting thinking
that steps back. It is useless for the set-up of entities, whether in an
institution or elsewhere. Beyng cannot be held or held onto. It can only be
received like a guest. The reception can be prepared by clearing the paths of
thinking-through what has been thought. Perhaps the guest will arrive. Perhaps
not. One may have an inkling that the guest is coming, a presentiment. But the
guest may pass on by.
Prepatory thinking may be institutionalized. But because of the unpredictability
of the guest, there is no way of telling whether it is an authentic institution
or not, or whether the thinking is genuine or not. This is the strife of
thinking in the coworld. Thinking remains essentially ambiguous. There is no
such thing as success in the thinking of beyng, no result to point to as the
proof of the pudding. You go in with empty hands and come out with empty hands.
Your heart may be full of nothingness, singing.
Passing on from the Championist question:
"If we do not employ the distinction 'collective/individual' (consciousness),
how can we distinguish Heidegger from Hegel?"
Michael Pennamacoor-lummy asks
"A second question: what is thought-worthy, what calls for thinking in the
distinction 'collective/individual' especially when we are concerned with
thinking? Do ind.s or coll.s think (H-wise)?"
There would already be something gained (success?) in not mixing Hegel and
Heidegger up with each other. In this context Derrida has rightly shone a
spotlight on the occurrence of spirit in Heidegger's texts.
A third question (at least) calls for (long, slow) thinking: Where is history
located? In consciousness (Bewusstsein)? In being-there (Dasein)? In the
clearing of the wesan (sway) of truth? How can H. say at the beginning of the
Letter on Humanism: "Thinking acts by thinking. This acting is presumably the
most simple and at the same time the highest because it concerns the relation of
being to humans."? Is such acting historical?
blank
bleep
Michael Eldred ° artefact text and translation \\\\\\ '''''''
artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx °°° made by art °°° (( C ~_} [ ° U ° ]
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ (( < *( \_/ )*
vox: (++49 221) 9520 333 fax: (++49 221) 9520 334 | | / \
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---