-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens Kenneth
Johnson
Verzonden: donderdag 15 juli 2004 0:57
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: RE: the embryo as principle
Rene schreef:
> All right, but how then got life so alienated from itself, and what is the
> possible sense of such alienation? Does it lie in a return to itself as
> itself? If yes, aren't we still in Hegelian waters, in the cage of
> subjectivity? It's not that i say i'm not in there, on the contrary:
> as a man animal i'm in there. But the more i realize that, the more i
>want to
> see the whole of the constellation. which it is an illusion to think can be
> changed or created or represented by an agent. First we have chased God
>out
> of the evolution, only to play the role ourselves? I don't think that's
>what
> Nietzsche meant with the trans-man. Since Nietzsche, 'life', like
>everything
> exposed to the dying breath of objectivity, has suffered too. Besides,
> a technology overcoming decadence, is just more decadence, no?
Well I'm not so sure Life is alienated if you write/think 'Life' rather
than 'life'.
Sure, Kenneth.
But is there life or Life without Its/its being-put-into-words?
False words, ok. Maybe even a false logic, ok. But not without
logos or Logos tout court, otherwise a position a la Klages:
spirit (nous, logos) as opponent of the soul (life).
In GA45 Heidegger, an a-historical thinker, writes that to the Greeks,
the logos is already IN physis. Then, the lying (keisthai) of an island
in the sea, would correspond to, be the same as the laying, done in human
legein, in which is said, as what and how the of-itself-fore-lying (hypokeimenon)
lies there, in the sea, under the sky. So that saying is showing, and without
showing no real saying, and without saying no real showing.
So, as long as we try to remain *between* the words, as i understand the essence
of your style, we cannot be mere opponents, while any mere stating, clinging to
the correct word, condemns itself.
Life evoluted as a very unique force over the eons to attain
very recently to language, which became a new cybernetic power, one still
without parallel, but unfortunately for Life all those weak reactive
cybernetic forms that created "that long nonsense called History" outnumber
the active forms by hoards and their greatest tool of abuse is the logos as
"the word".
"There is" [reactive] Life and there is [reactive] Language, paraphrasing
Deleuze.
So, what is needed desperately imo is for Life to become active at the
level of a SINGULAR self-consciousness, an awareness of itself as itself by
itself.
so inevitably logos too, which is also: concentration. 'Historically',
Leibniz had the post-Cartesian task, of thinking together being and one-ness.
For him, only the combination of will and representation makes (a) being:
become what you are.
Consciousness means: productive. But is not every doing on our side lastly
an undergoing, and the idea of us doing, creating it, an illusion? Even
this awareness of and by itself. One can only get aware of ... what already
is, no? We can make things, but we can't ever make the constellation we're
in.
Then after sufficient time, to round up all its errant strains of
weak wills to power abusers who use language to create phantasms - -
or i mean, what's wrong with everyone living their bit part of micro life
out consciously under the umbrella force of macro Life
You mean: like in an ant-hill every ant is taken care of: a good thing
in view of all excluding?
Leaving now for three weeks. I take with me a present: The rover by Conrad.
A French captain comes home, it's the South of France too, into a new after-rev
era.
I guess, leaving, to a rover, is going home as well.
au revoir
to all
rene
Kenneth,
or i mean 2, that i'm TRULY puzzled over why no one out there will just try
once or twice to think from their chest, so simple, so different, from the
long habituations of post neanderthal thought - -
isn't the neanderthaler the pure animal man?
regards,
Kenneth
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens Kenneth
Johnson
Verzonden: donderdag 15 juli 2004 0:57
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: RE: the embryo as principle
Rene schreef:
> All right, but how then got life so alienated from itself, and what is the
> possible sense of such alienation? Does it lie in a return to itself as
> itself? If yes, aren't we still in Hegelian waters, in the cage of
> subjectivity? It's not that i say i'm not in there, on the contrary:
> as a man animal i'm in there. But the more i realize that, the more i
>want to
> see the whole of the constellation. which it is an illusion to think can be
> changed or created or represented by an agent. First we have chased God
>out
> of the evolution, only to play the role ourselves? I don't think that's
>what
> Nietzsche meant with the trans-man. Since Nietzsche, 'life', like
>everything
> exposed to the dying breath of objectivity, has suffered too. Besides,
> a technology overcoming decadence, is just more decadence, no?
Well I'm not so sure Life is alienated if you write/think 'Life' rather
than 'life'.
Sure, Kenneth.
But is there life or Life without Its/its being-put-into-words?
False words, ok. Maybe even a false logic, ok. But not without
logos or Logos tout court, otherwise a position a la Klages:
spirit (nous, logos) as opponent of the soul (life).
In GA45 Heidegger, an a-historical thinker, writes that to the Greeks,
the logos is already IN physis. Then, the lying (keisthai) of an island
in the sea, would correspond to, be the same as the laying, done in human
legein, in which is said, as what and how the of-itself-fore-lying (hypokeimenon)
lies there, in the sea, under the sky. So that saying is showing, and without
showing no real saying, and without saying no real showing.
So, as long as we try to remain *between* the words, as i understand the essence
of your style, we cannot be mere opponents, while any mere stating, clinging to
the correct word, condemns itself.
Life evoluted as a very unique force over the eons to attain
very recently to language, which became a new cybernetic power, one still
without parallel, but unfortunately for Life all those weak reactive
cybernetic forms that created "that long nonsense called History" outnumber
the active forms by hoards and their greatest tool of abuse is the logos as
"the word".
"There is" [reactive] Life and there is [reactive] Language, paraphrasing
Deleuze.
So, what is needed desperately imo is for Life to become active at the
level of a SINGULAR self-consciousness, an awareness of itself as itself by
itself.
so inevitably logos too, which is also: concentration. 'Historically',
Leibniz had the post-Cartesian task, of thinking together being and one-ness.
For him, only the combination of will and representation makes (a) being:
become what you are.
Consciousness means: productive. But is not every doing on our side lastly
an undergoing, and the idea of us doing, creating it, an illusion? Even
this awareness of and by itself. One can only get aware of ... what already
is, no? We can make things, but we can't ever make the constellation we're
in.
Then after sufficient time, to round up all its errant strains of
weak wills to power abusers who use language to create phantasms - -
or i mean, what's wrong with everyone living their bit part of micro life
out consciously under the umbrella force of macro Life
You mean: like in an ant-hill every ant is taken care of: a good thing
in view of all excluding?
Leaving now for three weeks. I take with me a present: The rover by Conrad.
A French captain comes home, it's the South of France too, into a new after-rev
era.
I guess, leaving, to a rover, is going home as well.
au revoir
to all
rene
Kenneth,
or i mean 2, that i'm TRULY puzzled over why no one out there will just try
once or twice to think from their chest, so simple, so different, from the
long habituations of post neanderthal thought - -
isn't the neanderthaler the pure animal man?
regards,
Kenneth
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---