Chris Morrissey
More C Communications Inc.
a Microsoft Solution Provider
http://www.moreC.com voice or fax 604.877.7731
> It seems to me that writing is no more ambiguous than the "warm wind"
(Rafael
> Capurro) of speech. But it goes far further than ambiguity: The draft of
the
> world cast by a thinker destroys a previous world (the thinker acting
only as
> the casting agent of beyng). Since all understanding rests on and resides
within
> an understanding of being, an historical shift in the casting of the
being of
> beings has no ground to stand on. The thinker has to be a kind of
quicksand
> artist, casting out planks over the groundlessness of propriation.
In the casting, then, Man and Being touch each other in their essence, and
the thinker sees
"...[t]he universe, qua universe, standing in its own finitude, beyond the
parameters of science, in the primordial Event of Appropriation: the world,
qua world, gathered together in its unique resource - no longer withheld."
(D.G. Leahy, Novitas Mundi, p.291)
> Pointing out the obvious is indeed the task of thinking. The obvious has
to be
> pointed to and prodded until it finally becomes strange and questionable
and
> astonishing. Being and our understanding of it are so close to us, so
obvious,
> that it takes a heavy thinker not in his/her(?) right mind to gain a
distance.
>
> This is why the thinking of being is not gnosticism. The truth it points
to is
> staring us literally in the face. But it takes a circuitous route through
the
> tradition to realize how astonishing the mundane world is in its
mundaneness.
> Read with this in mind, Heidegger's 'Gelassenheit' (Releasement,
Letting-be)
> text loses any gnostic-mystical flavour it may have.
Quite right. But the gnosticism enters where the thinking of being falters.
"So Heidegger attributes to sacred doctrine a vagueness in its conception
of the Nothing that, as a matter of fact, is more in keeping with modern
thought's ingestion of the Nothing into the essence of what-is, than it is
consistent with the precision of Thomas Aquinas' understanding of the
Nothing...in Summa Theologica I,45,1 ad 3..." (Ibid., p.287)
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
More C Communications Inc.
a Microsoft Solution Provider
http://www.moreC.com voice or fax 604.877.7731
> It seems to me that writing is no more ambiguous than the "warm wind"
(Rafael
> Capurro) of speech. But it goes far further than ambiguity: The draft of
the
> world cast by a thinker destroys a previous world (the thinker acting
only as
> the casting agent of beyng). Since all understanding rests on and resides
within
> an understanding of being, an historical shift in the casting of the
being of
> beings has no ground to stand on. The thinker has to be a kind of
quicksand
> artist, casting out planks over the groundlessness of propriation.
In the casting, then, Man and Being touch each other in their essence, and
the thinker sees
"...[t]he universe, qua universe, standing in its own finitude, beyond the
parameters of science, in the primordial Event of Appropriation: the world,
qua world, gathered together in its unique resource - no longer withheld."
(D.G. Leahy, Novitas Mundi, p.291)
> Pointing out the obvious is indeed the task of thinking. The obvious has
to be
> pointed to and prodded until it finally becomes strange and questionable
and
> astonishing. Being and our understanding of it are so close to us, so
obvious,
> that it takes a heavy thinker not in his/her(?) right mind to gain a
distance.
>
> This is why the thinking of being is not gnosticism. The truth it points
to is
> staring us literally in the face. But it takes a circuitous route through
the
> tradition to realize how astonishing the mundane world is in its
mundaneness.
> Read with this in mind, Heidegger's 'Gelassenheit' (Releasement,
Letting-be)
> text loses any gnostic-mystical flavour it may have.
Quite right. But the gnosticism enters where the thinking of being falters.
"So Heidegger attributes to sacred doctrine a vagueness in its conception
of the Nothing that, as a matter of fact, is more in keeping with modern
thought's ingestion of the Nothing into the essence of what-is, than it is
consistent with the precision of Thomas Aquinas' understanding of the
Nothing...in Summa Theologica I,45,1 ad 3..." (Ibid., p.287)
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---