Thanks for the poem James,
I was thinking about the briefness of life last night as I read most of the night thinking about conduct (hsing in chinese) which Hui-neng claims is buddha. It seems we are dying faster than we want to acknowledge and if we do and the thought does not paralyze us well there is the energy that gives you a kick in the rear end. "Where there is improvisation which is impossible there I am blind to myself" Derrida just said on my little screen. When conduct is liberating or social which is to say that it effectuates a harmonizing binding relation then it's a joint improvisation marking a path on which nothing leaves an indentation and so no rut or groove, no memory. The experience of the impossible would not leave a history and so remains a secret. But the buddha can also become more societal than social. The societal is where conduct "establishes, maintains, or undermines universally adhered-to structures of regulated behavior with the aim of realizing agreement. Insititutions-- whether formal ones like marriage or informal ones like the conventions regulating business negotiation-- originate in societality." (Peter D. Hershock in Liberating Intimacy pg.55). In this latter case conduct which note is an aspect of buddhahood leads to an identification of who we are regulating innovation making the future more predictable. Hershock notes further that societality reduces the likelyhood of suffering by decreasing vulnerability in a growing inflexibility and rigidity. The key aspect of improvisational capacity is precisely then flexibility... suppleness of a kind of exposure that leaves one completely vulnerable and without the armor of a methodological progression of a bundle of intentional rays aiming at this or that. As Derrida says then the future is not predictable but unexpected, hospitality to the ten thousand things themselves... Hershock's book is worth considering in a highly selective bibliography of what could be called intuitionist philosophy of immanence. He doesn't put foward a doctrine or dogma nor does he do a synoptic view of commentaries on Ch'an Buddhism trying to step outside for an objective transcendental absolute and abstract point of view. He is not communicating in order to regulate an agreement around a set of ideas that would constitute a systematic conceptual horizon. No, he is yielding and so showing respect for a spirutual conversation but he also is doing what he writes about. Hershock improvises, innovates bifurcating differentiations growing perhaps in the fractal manner of a cauliflower. He follows Lin Chi's advice in killing the buddha on the road of his written conduct, his writitng under erasure, unsaying of the said, rumbling phone before logos, sige... He teaches what he calls a "choreo-poetic pedagogy of joint improvisation" that leads to the healing of the whole, worlding of the world, strenght and health of a socio-political order, jazzed up spiritual jihad and social anarchy outside all principles.
tympan
Thanks for your reply Tympan-
Look to this day
for it is life
the very life of life
In its brief course lie all
the realities and truths of existence
the joy of growth
the splendor of action
the glory of power
For yesterday is but a memory
And tomorrow is only a vision
But today well lived
makees every yesterday a memory
of happiness
and every tomorrow a vision of hope
Look well, therefore , to this day!
-Ancient poem from Sanskrit
Tympan Plato <daxsein@xxxxxxxxxxx> skrev den Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:52:53 -0400:
James writes:
Interesting.
Lots of people from Latin America and Africa would just laugh and cry at these academic discussions on a philosopher's history. Their memories are fresh with genocidal policies. To put so much effort into persecuting one person is just stupid guilty vanity when you are really dealing with a traumatic memory that is global in scope.
Somewhat in relation to ethics in early Heidegger:
Also, what are your present views on being able to laugh at this?
Is it necessary? Not the vain philosophical crusades, but the
discourse in general? Philosophical debate seems to grow more impotent and severed from society due to technocracy and professional philosophizing.In order for ethical/moral/political/etc change to occur in the
fuzzy societal field do you think this requires more a combination of being within the system (as a philosopher, politician) perhaps or as just leaving it behind? Or some other method?
That is, if you are interested in doing anything thing as such.
Hi James,
lol... sometimes I think it's best to do nothing specially when I'm feeling really good and quite satisfied and at peace. I'm learning to let go of a methological progression of ideas and enjoy working with what remains undeveloped and simple. I know it sounds stupid and in this regard I am no different than most people here and in particular snake (Judes) who is mostly about irritating emotional noise that is closer to the level of dogs barking than to anything that might be construed as philosophical discourse. He is a dumbass. We all go through the flames of his acting out like you. It's almost a rite of passage around here. He is being pretty mild. It's nothing compared to what we have seen in the past. It's discourse become brutality but that's also part of online theatrics. I feel for you because you seem to take him way too seriously and so he touches you and makes you emotive. You are probably being more emotional than he really is. We are all a bit irritating actually but that's part of this list. We are all somewhat of dialectical agitators but that spurs this list on and sometimes leads to interesting revelations and good laughs. I try just to be myself and become more of who I am as I write and try to see what I could possibly mean by doing this... Isn't that following the oracle at Delphi? As far my 'method' well it's like this, concerned because folded in on itself and talking about itself and conversation in general. I pay attention more to the form or style than the content of conversations here always proposing a poetic philosophy of listening more that informing people about this or that as if it's all about passing on some historical data. Philosophy is clearly a listening skill more than it is debate sorting through ideas intending to aim at some object or goal that we are all supposed to agree about. When it is more of an attentiveness then it is less subjective or pure subjectivity and this precisely is what connectivity or relation means. Philosophical attention then as a relationship is a kind of node in a networked society and that's why it heals social bonds and is a being-with in being-in-theworld or in the worlding of the world. In Heidegger the ecstatis of temporalizing temporality or moment of vision is attentiveness, a being in the open that shows a clearing or site that I like to name Persephone and is my little paradise with a garden of pleasure that I cultivate and a river that runs through her...
regards,
tympan
James
_________________________________________________________________
Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---