Hello Michael-
I'm a long-time lurker on the Heidegger list, and I've been following the
threads on violence and bodiliness with interest. My own area of interest
is "zoosemiotics", which is a field which attempts to think the question of
"language" more broadly, in an inclusive way which can speak of "language"
and "writing" wherever semiotic systems exist. Thus, for example, the
chemical marking of a territory by a wolf can be considered both language
and writing for a zoosemiotic interpretation (reading).
And, so, I have been grappling with your post:
>And the animals: here it seems just as difficult to say anything de-finitive.
>For Heidegger, the openness to beyng is pretty much equivalent to the openness
>to language (or the compulsion to speak). He follows Aristotle in the
>distinction between aisthesis and noein. Since animals cannot speak (yet),
>there
>does not seem much hope of saying what they are open to. Perhaps there are
>transitions and passageways between having language and being open to the AS.
>Sensitive thinking about the mysteries of our own bodiliness may provides
>clues
>to animal-being.
>
Do the ideas I've mentioned above seem to you to be a path worth clearing?
Best regards
Steven Slap
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
I'm a long-time lurker on the Heidegger list, and I've been following the
threads on violence and bodiliness with interest. My own area of interest
is "zoosemiotics", which is a field which attempts to think the question of
"language" more broadly, in an inclusive way which can speak of "language"
and "writing" wherever semiotic systems exist. Thus, for example, the
chemical marking of a territory by a wolf can be considered both language
and writing for a zoosemiotic interpretation (reading).
And, so, I have been grappling with your post:
>And the animals: here it seems just as difficult to say anything de-finitive.
>For Heidegger, the openness to beyng is pretty much equivalent to the openness
>to language (or the compulsion to speak). He follows Aristotle in the
>distinction between aisthesis and noein. Since animals cannot speak (yet),
>there
>does not seem much hope of saying what they are open to. Perhaps there are
>transitions and passageways between having language and being open to the AS.
>Sensitive thinking about the mysteries of our own bodiliness may provides
>clues
>to animal-being.
>
Do the ideas I've mentioned above seem to you to be a path worth clearing?
Best regards
Steven Slap
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---