SCHNECK@xxxxxxx writes:
>
>I have speculated that some answer to my own question can be found in
>the works associated with the Kehre--Letter on Humanism, Origin of the
>Work of Art, and so forth. These suggest that attentiveness is a sort of
>ontological category of its own, a sort of being that is an awareness of
>the ontological difference. In other words, attentiveness is not merely
>an attribute of Dasein. Rather, Dasein _is_ attentiveness.
Some caveats: 'attentiveness' and 'awareness' need to be divested of their
overtones of egoic phenomenology; Heid. (especially after the turn, but
this is also an issue in SZ) wishes to set aside or bracket traditional
(metaphysical, Cartesian) questions concerning consciousness in order
precisely to gain access to the more 'fundamental' dimension (or condition)
of the clearing, whose double-structure (glossed earlier as
concealment-unconcealment, later as sheltering-disclosing) appropriates and
also dispropriates man, precisely as Da-sein. ('As' being essentially
ambiguous here...)
Keeping consciousness (and subjectivity, construed as the metaphysics of
the subiectum) out of the picture, the later Heidegger's concern with
'care' or 'attentiveness' can be understood as a concern with Denken. 'Was
heisst Denken?' is the guiding question, whereby 'heissen' unfolds in its
duplexity as 'what is called thinking' -- a metaphysical question par
excellance -- and more essentially as 'what calls for thinking', what bids
thinking, calls it forth in having always already called to it. Since being
and thinking belong together essentially in a reciprocal play of attunement
-- which in turn must be thought in relation to the sending of
Seynsgeschichte -- thinking accedes to what is its own by its
commemorative, recollective holding-open of what has been, as precisely
what comes forth from the future (what Heid. calls andenkende Vordenken in
_Der Satz von Grund_).
Crucial to this claim (for me) is the conclusion to QCT: recollective
thinking holds fast to techne as essentially intertwined with poeisis --
non-dominating, non-calculative bringing-forth -- which is also determined
by to ekphanestaton: that which shines forth most radiantly. From this
meditative/reflective concern with what is coarsely called 'art' and
'beauty', the saving at the heart of the danger can be brought into
provisional relief. But the topic of beauty would require a whole other
string ... (Sorry if I'm rambling)
Cheers,
Paul
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paul Murphy
paul.murphy@xxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------
"The earth that has grown remote to itself is without
the hope the stars once promised. It is sinking into empty
galaxies. On it lies beauty as the reflection of past hope,
which fills the dying eye until it is frozen below the
flakes of unbounded space"
-T.W. Adorno, _Mahler: a Musical Physiognomy_
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>I have speculated that some answer to my own question can be found in
>the works associated with the Kehre--Letter on Humanism, Origin of the
>Work of Art, and so forth. These suggest that attentiveness is a sort of
>ontological category of its own, a sort of being that is an awareness of
>the ontological difference. In other words, attentiveness is not merely
>an attribute of Dasein. Rather, Dasein _is_ attentiveness.
Some caveats: 'attentiveness' and 'awareness' need to be divested of their
overtones of egoic phenomenology; Heid. (especially after the turn, but
this is also an issue in SZ) wishes to set aside or bracket traditional
(metaphysical, Cartesian) questions concerning consciousness in order
precisely to gain access to the more 'fundamental' dimension (or condition)
of the clearing, whose double-structure (glossed earlier as
concealment-unconcealment, later as sheltering-disclosing) appropriates and
also dispropriates man, precisely as Da-sein. ('As' being essentially
ambiguous here...)
Keeping consciousness (and subjectivity, construed as the metaphysics of
the subiectum) out of the picture, the later Heidegger's concern with
'care' or 'attentiveness' can be understood as a concern with Denken. 'Was
heisst Denken?' is the guiding question, whereby 'heissen' unfolds in its
duplexity as 'what is called thinking' -- a metaphysical question par
excellance -- and more essentially as 'what calls for thinking', what bids
thinking, calls it forth in having always already called to it. Since being
and thinking belong together essentially in a reciprocal play of attunement
-- which in turn must be thought in relation to the sending of
Seynsgeschichte -- thinking accedes to what is its own by its
commemorative, recollective holding-open of what has been, as precisely
what comes forth from the future (what Heid. calls andenkende Vordenken in
_Der Satz von Grund_).
Crucial to this claim (for me) is the conclusion to QCT: recollective
thinking holds fast to techne as essentially intertwined with poeisis --
non-dominating, non-calculative bringing-forth -- which is also determined
by to ekphanestaton: that which shines forth most radiantly. From this
meditative/reflective concern with what is coarsely called 'art' and
'beauty', the saving at the heart of the danger can be brought into
provisional relief. But the topic of beauty would require a whole other
string ... (Sorry if I'm rambling)
Cheers,
Paul
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paul Murphy
paul.murphy@xxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------
"The earth that has grown remote to itself is without
the hope the stars once promised. It is sinking into empty
galaxies. On it lies beauty as the reflection of past hope,
which fills the dying eye until it is frozen below the
flakes of unbounded space"
-T.W. Adorno, _Mahler: a Musical Physiognomy_
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---