----- Original Message -----
From: "michaelP" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 3:57 AM
Subject: Re: n'evers: addendum
> 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",
i perceive you are retreating, ...seems a discordia concors, eh? your sein
and seindes egos are violently, or placably, yoked, Michael?
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.
traditionally metafisics is conceived historically, ...our particular
problem, modernism, ie. western capitalism & science. And there's noone
today, i think, cept dinosaurs and maybe dame thatcher & spawn, doesn't
consider it an abject tyranny; but constructing world (worlding) is what
being, and emfatically "artist being", is about, eh? ...world, which at some
later point "philosopher being" analyses and discovers to be based on a set
of ungrounded assumptions. So it seems inescapable, if you want to
annihilate metafisics and religion, you have to abolish art.
Rene, following the master, even goes so far as giving the lie to
subject/object and predication itself, ...evangelizing the disembodied
artist/thinker, like the desert fathers, floating willy-nilly on the ether
of being, waiting for some godot.
as for me, ...admittedly lost in the woods, but loathe to give up the notion
that being is beings, and more, da-beings, mine and yerz, ...and the od, the
positing a transcendental place-holder,"non-entity entity", analytical
fiction, heir to the dead god, ...indespensible for pointing to the
mysterium tremendum (like moses, we're only allowed to see the ass of god,
eh?), last horizon of thinking, "why is there not nothing?"; but, clinging
to the notion of another homer to make more gods and illumine more,
hopefully less solitary, world/path toward the horizon.
>
> > Such a saying
> > must stifle the creature in the womb? ...
>
> Not at all. The creature already has a finger (with which to point).
yes, but that's the whole, a miscreant, a finger
>
> > 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".
being which is never beings is either an analytical abstraction, a mere
cognitive instrumentality, or you are positing a soul of the machine, an
essence or form, ...recalling anthony's stultifying formulae, as technology
is nothing technological, torture is nothing inhumane, etc. how if music
were nothing musical? ...leaving aside its actual condition, eh? that's all
i meant, Michael, ...you seemed to be slipping over to that view which most
famously shows itself in heid's divorcing the concrete historical happening
of "the movement" from "the movement".
however, you are of course ultimately in the right, i haven't, alas, the
time to keep up, so please indulge all mine as from a mere, if too serious,
student, ...a harried blue-collar student,
...at the least, not a holocaust industry heidegger bathroom joke
thanks,
bob
>
> regards (and thanks for the response)
>
> michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---