>Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 08:25:30 +1200
>To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>From: pennamacoor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael D. Pennamacoor)
>Subject: architecture and/or Heidegger
>Reply-to: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>Erik Champion is up in arms again. His basic approach seems to pose either (you send me useful snipe-ets of
>info) /or (you do not want to help me out). Erik seems to demand attention towards the securing of snipe-ets
>of knowledge, a sort of preparation for a kind of data-base in which who-said-whats-about-what fields can be
>sorted into nice pack-ets for later use.
Dear -pen in my heart-Michael,
"Seems to" is the operative word. You are sooo incisive with soooo little! How do ya do it??!!
Just because I ask questions does not mean that you can justifiably tell others that a) I think I have the answers
and that b) I am wrong.
Yet this seems to be your method.
If you wish to attack ad hominem, without textual justification. (and that could be all the evidence you could
have if you were capable of finding that which is not there) then go ahead, but don't expect those who listen to
what is said, and read what is written, and think what what can be thought, to agree with your air-pluckings.
I don't think that art can be categorised or that anything can. Please learn to read the lines, not the spaces
between them.
>Perhaps the Erik should
>be-gin to question the whole notion of doxa and idea and (see 'An Introduction to Metaphysics', Heidegger)..
I have a masters subthesis from some years ago to do with the relation of Introduction to Metaphysics to Past
Modern Architecture, an essay-chapter of which I gave to the local expert who callec me into his room to say it
was brilliant och saa videre...
My own superviser (emeritus professor) gave me an A+ for it.
I guess they are also at fault according to your 'logic". Perhaps everyone is, who don't agree with your hasty
and fallacious labelling.
Sorry, but I don't categorise the ineffable. I never said that I wanted to categorise art. And as I question, I won't
be your sheep or let you be my shepherd. Your pen is too small and your crook is too big.
>Nothing would be amiss here if this was not a Heidegger(ian) list.
Incorrect. It is a list on Heidegger. MH himself is dead. And you are not his offspring.
> With the best will in the world I would suggest that Erik does
>not need Heidegger or his/its 'brand' of thinking if all that is required is some kind of spurious assemblage of
>Heideggerian opinionating for whatever practical purposes or forms of re-gurgitation. This is not to say that
>Erik would not 'benefit' from ex-posure to thinking (Being) but he needs to open up to what he does not
>want (yet) and attempt to walk the gentle though tough paths of nearing Being.
You don't have "the best will in the world"! Be authentic even if it is your first time, you might actually learn
something if you actually consider what people ACTUALLY say.
I never said what I do not want.
How interesting that you say I am misreading/ignoring the writings of MH yet you put words into my posts
that aren't there. Bravo, you shepherd of authenticity you!!
Please listen for once:
My last post asked others what they thought of meta-aesthetics.
I did not say it was possible.
I do not see it as an attempt to categorise art etc even if it could be possible.
Don't want to.
>To see aesthetics and its
>meta as other than the object of an un-thinking speech that pro-duces results (for the culture industry and the
>prolongation of the rule of techne logos in things and thinks) is perhaps to begin to see art.
You betray your own ocularcentric bias. We don't "see" art. Don't you know what "world worlds" entails?!!!
>Perhaps the Erik
>phenomenon could be-gin to question the 'meta' and look into the meaning(s) of 'aesthetics' not to mention
>the arche of archi-texture rather than accept the questions as dis-solved as answered in a flurry of opinions
>and merely dis-putable positions to hold and let go of (for more profitable pursuits).
People who do not over-categorise do not use definite articles for the nomenature that stands for people. You
are trying to categorise my identity into a stereotype. This is not Heideggerean thought. Immerse yourself in
Eastern languages, learn some Finnish for example and perhaps you can learn to stop objectivising for the sake
of cheap shots etc.
>rather than wage minor flourishes and foot-stamping concerning whether who-ever has furnished him with
>the requisite answers to (perhaps) non-Heideggerian non-questions or no. Erik appears to my small
>intelligence precisely what Heidegger was referring to in 'An Introduction...' as the decline of 'spirit' into
>'intelligence' and mere 'cleverness' in the age of technology etc.
> Erik Champion is up in arms again. I would like to walk the path with him but I fear he will take up arms
>(again).
"THE path" ? "WITH him"? Sorry, you got MH wrong again. Perhaps it's just the talk of this cargo-wit cult you
belong to.
I don't stamp my feet or tell sincerely intentioned people that they should stop talking or that they must listen
to me or that their posts are not important. I have said what I am most interested in, and my language has been
brief as possible to save others time and to avoid confusion etc. Everything everyone else has sent me I have
read, considered, and taken enjoyment from. If they think I am footstamping I apologise, but I am only dancing
with the shoes of mortality and such do make a noise without an orchestra. Even ballerinas thud.
I must admit the following:
>Perhaps the Erik phenomenon could be-gin to question
>the 'meta' and look into the meaning(s) of 'aesthetics' not to mention the
>arche of archi-texture
...made me laugh. Go ahead, insult my understanding of my own profession!! And I am so sorry that you find
my posts belligerent (up in arms), I mean, you give me so little reason for being de-fensive, its not as if your
posts are trying to be o-ffensive!! (chuckle chuckle).
> Walk don't run.
> MP
If it is such good advice, then I suggest that you follow it yourself!!
--**--
Personally, I am more interested in Heidegger's views on art now,
and will revert back to the main thread to ask my next question. To save Mr Pennamacouer precious time, I am
not asking that he respond to my threads in future, His time must be too precious to waste continually
*correcting* me with his otherworld of knowledge.
Apart from Pen-in my-heart-Mike (not unplugged, unfortunately) thank you to those who replied to me about
the work of art. I will ask you a futher question soon, regarding the Thing.
Erik Champion
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>From: pennamacoor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael D. Pennamacoor)
>Subject: architecture and/or Heidegger
>Reply-to: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>Erik Champion is up in arms again. His basic approach seems to pose either (you send me useful snipe-ets of
>info) /or (you do not want to help me out). Erik seems to demand attention towards the securing of snipe-ets
>of knowledge, a sort of preparation for a kind of data-base in which who-said-whats-about-what fields can be
>sorted into nice pack-ets for later use.
Dear -pen in my heart-Michael,
"Seems to" is the operative word. You are sooo incisive with soooo little! How do ya do it??!!
Just because I ask questions does not mean that you can justifiably tell others that a) I think I have the answers
and that b) I am wrong.
Yet this seems to be your method.
If you wish to attack ad hominem, without textual justification. (and that could be all the evidence you could
have if you were capable of finding that which is not there) then go ahead, but don't expect those who listen to
what is said, and read what is written, and think what what can be thought, to agree with your air-pluckings.
I don't think that art can be categorised or that anything can. Please learn to read the lines, not the spaces
between them.
>Perhaps the Erik should
>be-gin to question the whole notion of doxa and idea and (see 'An Introduction to Metaphysics', Heidegger)..
I have a masters subthesis from some years ago to do with the relation of Introduction to Metaphysics to Past
Modern Architecture, an essay-chapter of which I gave to the local expert who callec me into his room to say it
was brilliant och saa videre...
My own superviser (emeritus professor) gave me an A+ for it.
I guess they are also at fault according to your 'logic". Perhaps everyone is, who don't agree with your hasty
and fallacious labelling.
Sorry, but I don't categorise the ineffable. I never said that I wanted to categorise art. And as I question, I won't
be your sheep or let you be my shepherd. Your pen is too small and your crook is too big.
>Nothing would be amiss here if this was not a Heidegger(ian) list.
Incorrect. It is a list on Heidegger. MH himself is dead. And you are not his offspring.
> With the best will in the world I would suggest that Erik does
>not need Heidegger or his/its 'brand' of thinking if all that is required is some kind of spurious assemblage of
>Heideggerian opinionating for whatever practical purposes or forms of re-gurgitation. This is not to say that
>Erik would not 'benefit' from ex-posure to thinking (Being) but he needs to open up to what he does not
>want (yet) and attempt to walk the gentle though tough paths of nearing Being.
You don't have "the best will in the world"! Be authentic even if it is your first time, you might actually learn
something if you actually consider what people ACTUALLY say.
I never said what I do not want.
How interesting that you say I am misreading/ignoring the writings of MH yet you put words into my posts
that aren't there. Bravo, you shepherd of authenticity you!!
Please listen for once:
My last post asked others what they thought of meta-aesthetics.
I did not say it was possible.
I do not see it as an attempt to categorise art etc even if it could be possible.
Don't want to.
>To see aesthetics and its
>meta as other than the object of an un-thinking speech that pro-duces results (for the culture industry and the
>prolongation of the rule of techne logos in things and thinks) is perhaps to begin to see art.
You betray your own ocularcentric bias. We don't "see" art. Don't you know what "world worlds" entails?!!!
>Perhaps the Erik
>phenomenon could be-gin to question the 'meta' and look into the meaning(s) of 'aesthetics' not to mention
>the arche of archi-texture rather than accept the questions as dis-solved as answered in a flurry of opinions
>and merely dis-putable positions to hold and let go of (for more profitable pursuits).
People who do not over-categorise do not use definite articles for the nomenature that stands for people. You
are trying to categorise my identity into a stereotype. This is not Heideggerean thought. Immerse yourself in
Eastern languages, learn some Finnish for example and perhaps you can learn to stop objectivising for the sake
of cheap shots etc.
>rather than wage minor flourishes and foot-stamping concerning whether who-ever has furnished him with
>the requisite answers to (perhaps) non-Heideggerian non-questions or no. Erik appears to my small
>intelligence precisely what Heidegger was referring to in 'An Introduction...' as the decline of 'spirit' into
>'intelligence' and mere 'cleverness' in the age of technology etc.
> Erik Champion is up in arms again. I would like to walk the path with him but I fear he will take up arms
>(again).
"THE path" ? "WITH him"? Sorry, you got MH wrong again. Perhaps it's just the talk of this cargo-wit cult you
belong to.
I don't stamp my feet or tell sincerely intentioned people that they should stop talking or that they must listen
to me or that their posts are not important. I have said what I am most interested in, and my language has been
brief as possible to save others time and to avoid confusion etc. Everything everyone else has sent me I have
read, considered, and taken enjoyment from. If they think I am footstamping I apologise, but I am only dancing
with the shoes of mortality and such do make a noise without an orchestra. Even ballerinas thud.
I must admit the following:
>Perhaps the Erik phenomenon could be-gin to question
>the 'meta' and look into the meaning(s) of 'aesthetics' not to mention the
>arche of archi-texture
...made me laugh. Go ahead, insult my understanding of my own profession!! And I am so sorry that you find
my posts belligerent (up in arms), I mean, you give me so little reason for being de-fensive, its not as if your
posts are trying to be o-ffensive!! (chuckle chuckle).
> Walk don't run.
> MP
If it is such good advice, then I suggest that you follow it yourself!!
--**--
Personally, I am more interested in Heidegger's views on art now,
and will revert back to the main thread to ask my next question. To save Mr Pennamacouer precious time, I am
not asking that he respond to my threads in future, His time must be too precious to waste continually
*correcting* me with his otherworld of knowledge.
Apart from Pen-in my-heart-Mike (not unplugged, unfortunately) thank you to those who replied to me about
the work of art. I will ask you a futher question soon, regarding the Thing.
Erik Champion
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---