Iain Thomson writes:
" Let us return, finally, to the question of 'patricide' Michael
"raises. It could be argued that Heidegger's destruktion of the ontological
"tradition is itself, in the end (e.g. in 1973's Zaringen Seminar), an
"anamnetic attempt to clear away the impediments blocking our recall of the
"philosophical parricide of the ontological progenitor; Heidegger's work
"facilitates a recovery of the "parricide" [patraloian hypolabes] of "father
"Parmenides" [patros Parmenidou], as the "Xenos from Elea" in Plato's
"Sophist puts it [241d]? (I'd say that this recovery of the parricide is
"less a reinarnation than the reconnection of a broken lineage, the
"reassertion of a certain succession, perhaps of the 'right' to interpret
"the meaning(s) of the event.) And, appropriately, isn't Oedipus somehow
"present here, at the moment when Plato stages the primal scene of the
"ontological parricide (in this text from which Heidegger launches B&T)?
""Yes, it is plain even to *a blind man,* as they say" [241d].
...or Tiresius, Homer, etc. I completely agree. And haven't
you just made the case for pricking down the Heideggerian text
for Reactionary/Fascist? as Marcuse, Habermas, Lowith, etc.
The conventional view sees in these plays
Sophocles' reactionism (the same sentiment as wrong-
headedly doomed Socrates) against an age of Apollonians,
whiz-kid types, clever men of business, sophist lawyers,
politicians, nouveaux, etc (read, Wiemer). A tension is set up btw
reason/modernity (the "Many are the wonders" speech in Antigone)
and the old time religion, the piety of "dancing the
sacred dances,...returning to the earth's navel stone"
and such; btw Oedipus-Tiresius, Creon-Antigone; to
overcome the curse on the house of Laius (Athens/Germany).
A vortex of violence, an holocaust, obliterates the self-confident,
sunlit, but unclean, Olympian man; and restores the pre-eminence of the
primitive gods, a piety of taboos, superstitutions, rituals, etc.
of the Colonus. So a pretty good fit allegorically as well, no?
Thank you,
Bob Scheetz
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
" Let us return, finally, to the question of 'patricide' Michael
"raises. It could be argued that Heidegger's destruktion of the ontological
"tradition is itself, in the end (e.g. in 1973's Zaringen Seminar), an
"anamnetic attempt to clear away the impediments blocking our recall of the
"philosophical parricide of the ontological progenitor; Heidegger's work
"facilitates a recovery of the "parricide" [patraloian hypolabes] of "father
"Parmenides" [patros Parmenidou], as the "Xenos from Elea" in Plato's
"Sophist puts it [241d]? (I'd say that this recovery of the parricide is
"less a reinarnation than the reconnection of a broken lineage, the
"reassertion of a certain succession, perhaps of the 'right' to interpret
"the meaning(s) of the event.) And, appropriately, isn't Oedipus somehow
"present here, at the moment when Plato stages the primal scene of the
"ontological parricide (in this text from which Heidegger launches B&T)?
""Yes, it is plain even to *a blind man,* as they say" [241d].
...or Tiresius, Homer, etc. I completely agree. And haven't
you just made the case for pricking down the Heideggerian text
for Reactionary/Fascist? as Marcuse, Habermas, Lowith, etc.
The conventional view sees in these plays
Sophocles' reactionism (the same sentiment as wrong-
headedly doomed Socrates) against an age of Apollonians,
whiz-kid types, clever men of business, sophist lawyers,
politicians, nouveaux, etc (read, Wiemer). A tension is set up btw
reason/modernity (the "Many are the wonders" speech in Antigone)
and the old time religion, the piety of "dancing the
sacred dances,...returning to the earth's navel stone"
and such; btw Oedipus-Tiresius, Creon-Antigone; to
overcome the curse on the house of Laius (Athens/Germany).
A vortex of violence, an holocaust, obliterates the self-confident,
sunlit, but unclean, Olympian man; and restores the pre-eminence of the
primitive gods, a piety of taboos, superstitutions, rituals, etc.
of the Colonus. So a pretty good fit allegorically as well, no?
Thank you,
Bob Scheetz
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---