Dear Michael,
Sorry about the confusion between Grudfragen and Grundbegriffe. I am a
long way from my library at the moment, and so am having to do a lot from
memory.
I do, however, have some of my notes with me and this is what I can tell
you. The relevant passages concerning compounds of the term erkennen begin
with section 24 of the published course, on page 87 of the German text
(English text p 78). There is a lot that is relevant here, but the actual
text I had in mind runs:
Wissenschaftliches Erkennen schafft und braucht den Abstand zum Gegenstand,
weshalb hier dann immer die nachtraegliche technisch-praktische
Wiederaufhebung des Abstandes noetig wird. Das Wesenswissen umgekehrt
schafft gerade die Zugehorigkeit zum Sein, und alle Nutzanwendung kommt zu
spaet und bleibt unter seinem Rang.
Die Wesenserkenntnis muss daher - soll sie zur Mit-teilung kommen - von
dem, der sie aufnehmen soll, selbst wieder neu vollzogen werden.
It's worth pointing out the proximity of "umgekehrt" and "Nutzanwendung"
just in reference to what we discussed in previous posts.
I hope this helps - though it's worth reading the whole section to make
sense of what is going on with regard to die Kehre.
The references to what is "futural" are littered throughout Heidegger's
work - you will find it clearly described as a temporal horizon in the 1924
lecture Der Begriff der Zeit (again sorry if the title is off, I'm doing
this from memory), in the 1930 lecture Vom Wesen der Wahrheit, and I'm
almost certain it's in (amongst many other places) the 1962 lecture Zeit
und Sein (I would be amazed if it wasn't). How it works is in contrast to
the vulgar concept of time - the "currens" of what runs up to meet us,
where the only distinction between the former, the now, and the latter is
in their being an endless sequence of nows. What is futural (indeed,
zukuenftig) is that which comes out from the future to meet us, the mystery
etc. In other words there are two temporal determinations of futurity in
Heidegger's work, itself critical to the working out of die Kehre, and why
die Kehre as Temporalitaet is not a single "horizon" or temporality but
twofold from which and into which one - we - Dasein - "kehrt".
Hope this clarifies things a little. Please don't ask for references on
futurity as I can't give them all to you right know, though this is, if I
recall, exactly the structure of the passage I cited for you from section 7
of the 1930 lecture a few days ago.
On different note, my sincere thanks to Jacob Knee who has, I think, solved
the problem of the dreadful attachments - please e-mail me privately if you
are still getting them after this message.
Rome is indeed a splendid place - I shall be sorry to leave in a few weeks
time.
Laurence
Rome 1996
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Sorry about the confusion between Grudfragen and Grundbegriffe. I am a
long way from my library at the moment, and so am having to do a lot from
memory.
I do, however, have some of my notes with me and this is what I can tell
you. The relevant passages concerning compounds of the term erkennen begin
with section 24 of the published course, on page 87 of the German text
(English text p 78). There is a lot that is relevant here, but the actual
text I had in mind runs:
Wissenschaftliches Erkennen schafft und braucht den Abstand zum Gegenstand,
weshalb hier dann immer die nachtraegliche technisch-praktische
Wiederaufhebung des Abstandes noetig wird. Das Wesenswissen umgekehrt
schafft gerade die Zugehorigkeit zum Sein, und alle Nutzanwendung kommt zu
spaet und bleibt unter seinem Rang.
Die Wesenserkenntnis muss daher - soll sie zur Mit-teilung kommen - von
dem, der sie aufnehmen soll, selbst wieder neu vollzogen werden.
It's worth pointing out the proximity of "umgekehrt" and "Nutzanwendung"
just in reference to what we discussed in previous posts.
I hope this helps - though it's worth reading the whole section to make
sense of what is going on with regard to die Kehre.
The references to what is "futural" are littered throughout Heidegger's
work - you will find it clearly described as a temporal horizon in the 1924
lecture Der Begriff der Zeit (again sorry if the title is off, I'm doing
this from memory), in the 1930 lecture Vom Wesen der Wahrheit, and I'm
almost certain it's in (amongst many other places) the 1962 lecture Zeit
und Sein (I would be amazed if it wasn't). How it works is in contrast to
the vulgar concept of time - the "currens" of what runs up to meet us,
where the only distinction between the former, the now, and the latter is
in their being an endless sequence of nows. What is futural (indeed,
zukuenftig) is that which comes out from the future to meet us, the mystery
etc. In other words there are two temporal determinations of futurity in
Heidegger's work, itself critical to the working out of die Kehre, and why
die Kehre as Temporalitaet is not a single "horizon" or temporality but
twofold from which and into which one - we - Dasein - "kehrt".
Hope this clarifies things a little. Please don't ask for references on
futurity as I can't give them all to you right know, though this is, if I
recall, exactly the structure of the passage I cited for you from section 7
of the 1930 lecture a few days ago.
On different note, my sincere thanks to Jacob Knee who has, I think, solved
the problem of the dreadful attachments - please e-mail me privately if you
are still getting them after this message.
Rome is indeed a splendid place - I shall be sorry to leave in a few weeks
time.
Laurence
Rome 1996
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---