Tom, just a couple very quick reflections.
Yes, a little large. Could have stood to be "pared down" a little. But, of
course, that suggests the "knife," so perhaps a bit too violent... But,
still, I'm appreciative of the post, obviously involves something you've
thought long and hard about--but does thinking "long and hard" about
something itself entail violence? Oh well...
But seriously, the thought came to me that if we think of Dasein as the
complement (even the opposite) of Becoming, then the notion of Death at its
heart would make some sense. If Dasein is in some way the opposite of
Becoming, that would make it Begoing, I suppose. Certainly, always, and
continuously, a passing away. And in some essential fashion, always
fugitive. The only true ground one might hope to find would have to be in
the fashion of a "black hole," in other words, that is, No-Ground. If there
is, in line with this notion, no neutral ground, no stasis point or points
within the shifting scene which is Dasein in its cruder, more primitive,
unrefined aspects, then how might neutrality itself come to be out of
Dasein? The deeper question being how can _anything_ come to be out of
Dasien if Dasien is in every respect always a passing away. In other words,
mustn't we have to look outside of Dasein, to that which is precedent to
Dasein, to Becoming, for this? Except that for this we must, paradoxically,
it would seem, look not without, but within, Dasein, as the product of
Becoming. We can only "know" Becoming in its Begoing, in other words. Life
in Death.
The resistance here is to viewing Dasein as some kind of sacred ground that
should not be subject to appropriation, when, in reality, it is the
Appropriated, the Seized, as such (the defined, equated, etc.). Or the
product of prior and ongoing violences, if you wish. The ground we plow is
filled with bones, in other words. None of this is to argue the question,
for instance, of "good" vs. "bad" violence, but merely to highlight that
what "does violence to something" involves by implication a taking, an
appropriation, a willing vs. an unwilling. Action and resistance. Power.
Steve Callihan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Yes, a little large. Could have stood to be "pared down" a little. But, of
course, that suggests the "knife," so perhaps a bit too violent... But,
still, I'm appreciative of the post, obviously involves something you've
thought long and hard about--but does thinking "long and hard" about
something itself entail violence? Oh well...
But seriously, the thought came to me that if we think of Dasein as the
complement (even the opposite) of Becoming, then the notion of Death at its
heart would make some sense. If Dasein is in some way the opposite of
Becoming, that would make it Begoing, I suppose. Certainly, always, and
continuously, a passing away. And in some essential fashion, always
fugitive. The only true ground one might hope to find would have to be in
the fashion of a "black hole," in other words, that is, No-Ground. If there
is, in line with this notion, no neutral ground, no stasis point or points
within the shifting scene which is Dasein in its cruder, more primitive,
unrefined aspects, then how might neutrality itself come to be out of
Dasein? The deeper question being how can _anything_ come to be out of
Dasien if Dasien is in every respect always a passing away. In other words,
mustn't we have to look outside of Dasein, to that which is precedent to
Dasein, to Becoming, for this? Except that for this we must, paradoxically,
it would seem, look not without, but within, Dasein, as the product of
Becoming. We can only "know" Becoming in its Begoing, in other words. Life
in Death.
The resistance here is to viewing Dasein as some kind of sacred ground that
should not be subject to appropriation, when, in reality, it is the
Appropriated, the Seized, as such (the defined, equated, etc.). Or the
product of prior and ongoing violences, if you wish. The ground we plow is
filled with bones, in other words. None of this is to argue the question,
for instance, of "good" vs. "bad" violence, but merely to highlight that
what "does violence to something" involves by implication a taking, an
appropriation, a willing vs. an unwilling. Action and resistance. Power.
Steve Callihan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---