Cologne, 25 June 1996
Laurence Paul Hemming writes under the heading "the turning", which names
one of my contributions to the list:
"To those of you who continue to construct elaborate textual and mental
buildings and habitations for the turning,..." Why the ill-humoured polemics? My
posting entitled "the turning" was a serious response to Triin Kallas'
contribution.
I cannot understand the question "what if Dasein (which is ever Menschlichen,
though not always der Mensch als solches) in coming to itself turns to and from
die Seienden and das Sein,..." What is this turning to and from?
Laurence goes on: "If you sincerely want us to believe that Heidegger "turned"
>from the structural analytic of Dasein (or some such) to das Sein as such
(rather than Ueberhaupt as one person said) you are going to have to explain the
ontological difference to be something very different than that difference
between das Seiende and das Sein which Dasein IS as undertaking."
I do not sincerely want anyone to believe anything. I also did not make a
distinction betwen 'das Sein als solche' and 'das Sein ueberhaupt', but I
questioned whether the latter could be translated into English as "being in
general". The turning, as far as Heidegger's thinking goes, concerns the failure
of SZ, not as a question, but as a book. Under the title 'Sein und Zeit', which
is mostly put in quotes throughout Heidegger's texts, reference is made to the
book and the thinking of this book. This book is written "with the aid of the
language of metaphysics" (Brief ueber den Humanismus, WM 1978 S.325). The
passage cited is the 'canonical' passage referring to the turning which refers
to the turning around of Being and Time into Time and Being in the third section
of the first part of SZ. Thinking this turning does not "get through" (ibid.)
using the language of metaphysics. Only with the turning does "the attempted
thinking first reach the locality of the dimension out of which 'Sein und Zeit'
is experienced..." (ibid.) "This turning is not a change of the standpoint of
'Sein und Zeit'" (ibid.) So the turning does not imply that the ontological
difference is left behind, but it does gain a very different language, cf. e.g.
Identity and Difference, where the difference is thought as the Austrag von
Ueberkoemmnis und Ankunft, a language that no longer has anything in common with
the language of metaphysics. Dasein is not the ontological difference. Dasein as
such is let into, exposed to, thrown into, inlaid in the ontological difference.
The Da of Da-sein could perhaps be said to be the ontological difference. Only
by equating Dasein with the ontological difference can Laurence get into
difficulties with the turning from the Daseinsanalytik to the thinking of the
truth of beyng. Heidegger also does not turn away from Dasein in his thinking
with the turning. He continues to think the same ('thing') with the turning.
Of course Dasein is not an object. Nor does the turning formulated as a turning
away from the attempted thinking of being in SZ to a more adequate language in
the thinking of the truth of being presuppose that Dasein is thought
'objectively' in SZ. I agree completely: "The analytic of Dasein is the
destruction of the subject.", or more precisely: subjectivity. Laurence asks:
"Where's the turning?" The turning lies in what resulted from the failure of SZ
to think the turning of Being and Time into Time and Being, i.e. to think the
sense of being as such as Temporalitaet (cf. my previous posting). After 1927,
to my knowledge, one doesn't hear anything more about Temporalitaet. It's a dead
duck for the attempt to think the sense of being as such. In 1926/27, Heidegger,
in turning into Temporalitaet in the attempt to turn around Being and Time into
Time and Being, turns into a dead end. SZ is the last work of Heidegger's that
can be called an Analytik. Afterwards it is rather paths of thinking from which
thinking views the Same from different angles and perspectives.
I agree with Laurence that the turning does not mean that SZ "was still
metaphysics".
I come back to the formulation of the turning that I quoted in my posting of the
same name: "The name 'time' is the preliminary name for what is later called
'the truth of being'." The turning: a change of names? Through this renaming
thinking reaches the "locality of another dimension"?
Michael Eldred ° artefact text and translation \\\ /// '''''''
artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx °°° made by art °°° ( ~ L ~ ) [ ° U ° ]
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ { <-> } *( \_/ )*
vox: (++49 221) 9520 333 fax: (++49 221) 9520 334 \___/ / \
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Laurence Paul Hemming writes under the heading "the turning", which names
one of my contributions to the list:
"To those of you who continue to construct elaborate textual and mental
buildings and habitations for the turning,..." Why the ill-humoured polemics? My
posting entitled "the turning" was a serious response to Triin Kallas'
contribution.
I cannot understand the question "what if Dasein (which is ever Menschlichen,
though not always der Mensch als solches) in coming to itself turns to and from
die Seienden and das Sein,..." What is this turning to and from?
Laurence goes on: "If you sincerely want us to believe that Heidegger "turned"
>from the structural analytic of Dasein (or some such) to das Sein as such
(rather than Ueberhaupt as one person said) you are going to have to explain the
ontological difference to be something very different than that difference
between das Seiende and das Sein which Dasein IS as undertaking."
I do not sincerely want anyone to believe anything. I also did not make a
distinction betwen 'das Sein als solche' and 'das Sein ueberhaupt', but I
questioned whether the latter could be translated into English as "being in
general". The turning, as far as Heidegger's thinking goes, concerns the failure
of SZ, not as a question, but as a book. Under the title 'Sein und Zeit', which
is mostly put in quotes throughout Heidegger's texts, reference is made to the
book and the thinking of this book. This book is written "with the aid of the
language of metaphysics" (Brief ueber den Humanismus, WM 1978 S.325). The
passage cited is the 'canonical' passage referring to the turning which refers
to the turning around of Being and Time into Time and Being in the third section
of the first part of SZ. Thinking this turning does not "get through" (ibid.)
using the language of metaphysics. Only with the turning does "the attempted
thinking first reach the locality of the dimension out of which 'Sein und Zeit'
is experienced..." (ibid.) "This turning is not a change of the standpoint of
'Sein und Zeit'" (ibid.) So the turning does not imply that the ontological
difference is left behind, but it does gain a very different language, cf. e.g.
Identity and Difference, where the difference is thought as the Austrag von
Ueberkoemmnis und Ankunft, a language that no longer has anything in common with
the language of metaphysics. Dasein is not the ontological difference. Dasein as
such is let into, exposed to, thrown into, inlaid in the ontological difference.
The Da of Da-sein could perhaps be said to be the ontological difference. Only
by equating Dasein with the ontological difference can Laurence get into
difficulties with the turning from the Daseinsanalytik to the thinking of the
truth of beyng. Heidegger also does not turn away from Dasein in his thinking
with the turning. He continues to think the same ('thing') with the turning.
Of course Dasein is not an object. Nor does the turning formulated as a turning
away from the attempted thinking of being in SZ to a more adequate language in
the thinking of the truth of being presuppose that Dasein is thought
'objectively' in SZ. I agree completely: "The analytic of Dasein is the
destruction of the subject.", or more precisely: subjectivity. Laurence asks:
"Where's the turning?" The turning lies in what resulted from the failure of SZ
to think the turning of Being and Time into Time and Being, i.e. to think the
sense of being as such as Temporalitaet (cf. my previous posting). After 1927,
to my knowledge, one doesn't hear anything more about Temporalitaet. It's a dead
duck for the attempt to think the sense of being as such. In 1926/27, Heidegger,
in turning into Temporalitaet in the attempt to turn around Being and Time into
Time and Being, turns into a dead end. SZ is the last work of Heidegger's that
can be called an Analytik. Afterwards it is rather paths of thinking from which
thinking views the Same from different angles and perspectives.
I agree with Laurence that the turning does not mean that SZ "was still
metaphysics".
I come back to the formulation of the turning that I quoted in my posting of the
same name: "The name 'time' is the preliminary name for what is later called
'the truth of being'." The turning: a change of names? Through this renaming
thinking reaches the "locality of another dimension"?
Michael Eldred ° artefact text and translation \\\ /// '''''''
artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx °°° made by art °°° ( ~ L ~ ) [ ° U ° ]
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ { <-> } *( \_/ )*
vox: (++49 221) 9520 333 fax: (++49 221) 9520 334 \___/ / \
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---