dear paul murphy and lieber michael eldred,
thanks for your reply and sorry for the delay (I am spending now the summer
time in Vienna)
Heidegger was very interested in technology and particularly in cybernetics.
In an article I published in Philosophisches Jahrbuch (I think it was in
1981!) I put all the texts I could find on this matter together and I also
made some connections to Medard Boss' criticisms of informatism (in the
first part of his work: Grundlagen der Medizin). I think the key point is
the kind of relationship we have towards language:
information implies an instrumental relationship, poetry a non-instrumental
one (I said: die Sprache meldet sich in der Information, sie kommt aber
wesentlich zu Wort in der Dichtung). There is also an interesting
relationship to Carl Friedrich von Weizsaecker and to his ideas on language
and information (his lecture and Heidegger' s lecture (which appeared in
Unterwegs zur Sprache) were held at the same congress in Munich). There is
also the question Heidegger states concerning the "sprechen ueber" and
"sprechen von" (this is an interesting point for connecting Heidegger and
Wittgenstein, who wrote: Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man
schweigen": is there a possibility of speaking "von" i.e. "from" something
(instead of "about" or "over" i.e. in a dominating manner)? Of course, there
is basically the question of silence (Heidegger' s Sigetik) belonging to
such a speaking "von".
I undertand H's "metaphor" about the photographic negative in a similar
sense as in BT Eigentlichkeit and Uneigentlichkeit belong together. We are
zunaechst and zumeist in Everydayness and we remain there, but with a change
of view...So my question concerning the Information-Gestell was, where and
how is this "turn" to be conceived, in order to see the negative *as* a
negative (of course "negative" implies no moral condamnation...)
lieber michael eldred,
my postings are mostly "untidy"! this is not only a problem with my English
but also with my Time!
but anyway!
Your say: Computers are not hermeneutic beings
is this so clear? maybe the borders between computers and humans are not so
sharp (as the ones between humans and animals...), i.e. we are also in some
way computers and - well in what way are computers "in-the-world"?
Rembember: der Stein ist weltlos, das tier weltarm and der mensch
weltbildend. And Computers? There is hier the question of techne and
technology to be phenomenologically analyzed (maybe there are important
Hints in Hs Vorlesung on the Sophistes)
Your distinctions between coming to stand in a fore-seen and in an
un-fore-seen set up are important (remember the Biblical origin of Hs.
conception of time as Kairos). Well I am againg very untidy and Vienna is a
wonderful city
cheers
Rafael
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---