BobS recently:
mP:
>> Of course I meant to say:
>>
>> given the impossibility and impasse-ability of *sur-passing or leaving
>> a-side* the language of metaphysics (the only one we have), consider
> these:
>>
>> Sein [is] never siendes [excuse the bad german];
>>
>> Ereignis [an 'event' that] never happens;
>>
>> Where now nowhere (know where?) man?
>>
>> baby baby baby
>> where *did* our love *go*?
BobS:
> I should think it rather hard for you, Michael? ...for the artist man
> "being" is always the presenting and happening of beings.
Several points, Bob: insofar as I am speaking as and only as an artist then
what you say is appropo in a limited sense, but also the artist-as-artist is
out for a glimpse (augenblick) of be-ing itself in the very mingling with
and in/through beings (in the birthing of 'beauty') [see Heidegger on
Plato's notion of beauty in his 'Nietzsche 1']; to say that be-ing is never
a being is not to say that be-ing is altogether 'missing' from the
"presenting and happening of beings", any more than the potential fire
spark is missing from the pieces of wood and flint and the firemaker's
craft: but the fire is never the wood, the flint, the craft. That's not a
good example of what I mean and none would be really appropriate because of
the non-analogical 'nature' of be-ing (it can not be re-presented).
Furthermore, I was not speaking as (only as) an artist. I meant, perhaps
unsuccessfully, to suggest that within the domain of metaphysicality (and
its inescapability, its fond and unfond embrace), first sein, then ereignis
(both bigged up by da-sein), have this never-character... we are like herds
of moses' who though promised never get to see and live in the promised
land. My obscure, perhaps, point was that the business of the nature of
metaphysics and its empire-building language is the point: how can its hold
be relaxed? how can its embrace be softened from an emprisoning lock-hold to
a lovers' enminglement, or even a release? Most solutions to the hold of
metaphysics boil down to some kind of denial (of the hold): claims to
having-already-left, claims to its being a rubbish-tip one can simply
(holding nose) disclaim, claims to some kind of 'progress'/'moving on', etc.
I think the very example of Heidegger is testament to both the complexity of
this problem and the impossibility of simply leaving metaphysics alone, and,
it is in this context that I, partly in response to Rene's assertion that
the ontological difference, and perhaps ereignis, are still caught in the
embrace of metaphysics, have made an attempt to point to the root (its
radicality) or at least a root, of the problem... perhaps metaphysics can
never be surpassed in the sense of leaving it behind or incorporating it as
in one big go, one big trip to another continent, a new world, an other
amerika, second eden; perhaps it needs to be brought-back via its roots, its
arche, right on through to some now, *each and every time* one thinks in its
embrace: repetition/kairos. The essay 'The Anaximander Fragment' might
provide an instance, as might many other pieces by Heidegger.
> Such a saying
> must stifle the creature in the womb? ...
Not at all. The creature already has a finger (with which to point).
> cast you out into the frigid utopia
> of wittgensteinian word play? Is there art in essentialism, Michael? how
> does it
> conduce to artistic creativity for you?
What "essentialism" do you mean, Bob? Where do you find it in my speech? (I
presume you are seeing it in the above or elsewhere) I cannot answer this
without understanding what you mean here and now (in the context in which
you, writing on the list, find it...) by "essentialism".
regards (and thanks for the response)
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
mP:
>> Of course I meant to say:
>>
>> given the impossibility and impasse-ability of *sur-passing or leaving
>> a-side* the language of metaphysics (the only one we have), consider
> these:
>>
>> Sein [is] never siendes [excuse the bad german];
>>
>> Ereignis [an 'event' that] never happens;
>>
>> Where now nowhere (know where?) man?
>>
>> baby baby baby
>> where *did* our love *go*?
BobS:
> I should think it rather hard for you, Michael? ...for the artist man
> "being" is always the presenting and happening of beings.
Several points, Bob: insofar as I am speaking as and only as an artist then
what you say is appropo in a limited sense, but also the artist-as-artist is
out for a glimpse (augenblick) of be-ing itself in the very mingling with
and in/through beings (in the birthing of 'beauty') [see Heidegger on
Plato's notion of beauty in his 'Nietzsche 1']; to say that be-ing is never
a being is not to say that be-ing is altogether 'missing' from the
"presenting and happening of beings", any more than the potential fire
spark is missing from the pieces of wood and flint and the firemaker's
craft: but the fire is never the wood, the flint, the craft. That's not a
good example of what I mean and none would be really appropriate because of
the non-analogical 'nature' of be-ing (it can not be re-presented).
Furthermore, I was not speaking as (only as) an artist. I meant, perhaps
unsuccessfully, to suggest that within the domain of metaphysicality (and
its inescapability, its fond and unfond embrace), first sein, then ereignis
(both bigged up by da-sein), have this never-character... we are like herds
of moses' who though promised never get to see and live in the promised
land. My obscure, perhaps, point was that the business of the nature of
metaphysics and its empire-building language is the point: how can its hold
be relaxed? how can its embrace be softened from an emprisoning lock-hold to
a lovers' enminglement, or even a release? Most solutions to the hold of
metaphysics boil down to some kind of denial (of the hold): claims to
having-already-left, claims to its being a rubbish-tip one can simply
(holding nose) disclaim, claims to some kind of 'progress'/'moving on', etc.
I think the very example of Heidegger is testament to both the complexity of
this problem and the impossibility of simply leaving metaphysics alone, and,
it is in this context that I, partly in response to Rene's assertion that
the ontological difference, and perhaps ereignis, are still caught in the
embrace of metaphysics, have made an attempt to point to the root (its
radicality) or at least a root, of the problem... perhaps metaphysics can
never be surpassed in the sense of leaving it behind or incorporating it as
in one big go, one big trip to another continent, a new world, an other
amerika, second eden; perhaps it needs to be brought-back via its roots, its
arche, right on through to some now, *each and every time* one thinks in its
embrace: repetition/kairos. The essay 'The Anaximander Fragment' might
provide an instance, as might many other pieces by Heidegger.
> Such a saying
> must stifle the creature in the womb? ...
Not at all. The creature already has a finger (with which to point).
> cast you out into the frigid utopia
> of wittgensteinian word play? Is there art in essentialism, Michael? how
> does it
> conduce to artistic creativity for you?
What "essentialism" do you mean, Bob? Where do you find it in my speech? (I
presume you are seeing it in the above or elsewhere) I cannot answer this
without understanding what you mean here and now (in the context in which
you, writing on the list, find it...) by "essentialism".
regards (and thanks for the response)
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---