Cologne, 11 July 1996
Robert Scheetz writes:
"Can I say then that the structuring consciousness and all its content: 'self'
to 'history' to 'science' is mere appearance, 'inauthentic', 'without being' for
H? that the ontic is an illusory or spurious resonance or emanation? And, would
this be another movement of the perpetual German-idealism-vs-Brit- positivism
fugue?"
No, you can't. It's more a leap from the fugue to the music of John Cage. The
leap is not from mere apperance, inauthenticity, beinglessness to truth,
authenticity and being but rather: the leap from one truth of being to another
truth of being, a leaping shift of the location of truth. (Kuhn would say a
change of paradigm, but he is much more superficial, and much later than the
(advent of the) thinking of being.)
The ontic is not "illusory or spurious". The leap is also a climbing back into
something more originary. Only for this reason can 'Sein und Zeit' show how
subjectivity is derivable (phenomenologically, not logically!) from Dasein
(destruction of Cartesianism), or that the truth of statements (predicate truth)
upheld by logic (e.g. predicate calculus) is located more originarily in the
truth of unconcealedness. So these historical truths of beyng are not
incompatible, but only downwards compatible, i.e. thinking has to leap to get to
the truth of aletheia, but it can stroll back to have a nostalgic look at its
former residence.
I wonder what this leap has to do with the turning that Laurence Hemming is so
interested in.
The ontic is not "illusory or spurious". But it can only appear as such within
an understanding of being to which metaphysics becomes increasingly oblivious.
Late metaphysics, especially positivism, no longer has any access at all to
Aristotele and Plato (the idea, beings as such (to on he on), being before it
was being (to ti en einai)). For positivism and language philosophy, metaphysics
is just a bunch of illusory problems.
Metaphysics literally and 'in principal' not understand the thinking of being.
Only a running leap out of metaphysics is possible. For those remaining within
the logic (as the locus of truth) of metaphysics, the thinking of being is just
endless, arbitrary, vacuous language games.
The leap into the thinking of aletheia can be motivated by asking what are the
presuppositions of logical truth, but there is no logic that can reach aletheia
of itself. Logic itself has to take a deep breath and make the plunge and, above
all, open its eyes.
Regarding authenticity: I have found the following passage from SZ helpful, with
Heidegger's retrospective scholium:
"Only in genuine speaking is authentic silence possible. In order to be able to
be silent, Dasein must have something to (a)say, that is, it must have taken
itself in authentically and richly." (SZ Section 34, S.167 15th ed.)
And the scholium:
(a) "and what is to be said? (beyng)"
Authenticity is thus later taken out of any generality and focused onto the task
of thinking. I was very shocked reading this for the first time many years ago.
With this short remark, the jargon of authenticity has the ground taken away
>from under its feet, and we are called into the sobriety of thinking.
Michael
Dr Michael Eldred ° artefact text and translation \\\ ° '~': '' ///
artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx °°° made by art °°° °~ \ ' ) ''' | . \ - °
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _ °/ ~ : ~:~ \./''/
vox: (++49 221) 9520 333 fax: (++49 221) 9520 334 .{.\ ~. ' ~ { } .\ : ~
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Robert Scheetz writes:
"Can I say then that the structuring consciousness and all its content: 'self'
to 'history' to 'science' is mere appearance, 'inauthentic', 'without being' for
H? that the ontic is an illusory or spurious resonance or emanation? And, would
this be another movement of the perpetual German-idealism-vs-Brit- positivism
fugue?"
No, you can't. It's more a leap from the fugue to the music of John Cage. The
leap is not from mere apperance, inauthenticity, beinglessness to truth,
authenticity and being but rather: the leap from one truth of being to another
truth of being, a leaping shift of the location of truth. (Kuhn would say a
change of paradigm, but he is much more superficial, and much later than the
(advent of the) thinking of being.)
The ontic is not "illusory or spurious". The leap is also a climbing back into
something more originary. Only for this reason can 'Sein und Zeit' show how
subjectivity is derivable (phenomenologically, not logically!) from Dasein
(destruction of Cartesianism), or that the truth of statements (predicate truth)
upheld by logic (e.g. predicate calculus) is located more originarily in the
truth of unconcealedness. So these historical truths of beyng are not
incompatible, but only downwards compatible, i.e. thinking has to leap to get to
the truth of aletheia, but it can stroll back to have a nostalgic look at its
former residence.
I wonder what this leap has to do with the turning that Laurence Hemming is so
interested in.
The ontic is not "illusory or spurious". But it can only appear as such within
an understanding of being to which metaphysics becomes increasingly oblivious.
Late metaphysics, especially positivism, no longer has any access at all to
Aristotele and Plato (the idea, beings as such (to on he on), being before it
was being (to ti en einai)). For positivism and language philosophy, metaphysics
is just a bunch of illusory problems.
Metaphysics literally and 'in principal' not understand the thinking of being.
Only a running leap out of metaphysics is possible. For those remaining within
the logic (as the locus of truth) of metaphysics, the thinking of being is just
endless, arbitrary, vacuous language games.
The leap into the thinking of aletheia can be motivated by asking what are the
presuppositions of logical truth, but there is no logic that can reach aletheia
of itself. Logic itself has to take a deep breath and make the plunge and, above
all, open its eyes.
Regarding authenticity: I have found the following passage from SZ helpful, with
Heidegger's retrospective scholium:
"Only in genuine speaking is authentic silence possible. In order to be able to
be silent, Dasein must have something to (a)say, that is, it must have taken
itself in authentically and richly." (SZ Section 34, S.167 15th ed.)
And the scholium:
(a) "and what is to be said? (beyng)"
Authenticity is thus later taken out of any generality and focused onto the task
of thinking. I was very shocked reading this for the first time many years ago.
With this short remark, the jargon of authenticity has the ground taken away
>from under its feet, and we are called into the sobriety of thinking.
Michael
Dr Michael Eldred ° artefact text and translation \\\ ° '~': '' ///
artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx °°° made by art °°° °~ \ ' ) ''' | . \ - °
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _ °/ ~ : ~:~ \./''/
vox: (++49 221) 9520 333 fax: (++49 221) 9520 334 .{.\ ~. ' ~ { } .\ : ~
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---