rene,
Here is a post from sept 2000 on overcoming metaphysics from me. The difference today for me is that rather than look towards a transcendental imagination I'm putting emphasis on immanent innovation. A far as responsibility well I would say differently from what i say below that there is the duty to bring people together into a headless phantom society without identity. A society of a people who are flexible and vulnerable but just because of this are better able to deal with crisis and suffering.
Micheal,
I have been taking a few days to think your post over. The only thing I
have time for on this list right now. I haven't even been able to read
any posts for some days now. I need to get away once in a while and
just clear my head of everything including any intentions I may have
going towards this or that. After having studied GA26 and GA24 for a
couple of years this year I started moving to the winter of 27/28 and
the "Phenomenological interpretation of Kant's _Critique of Pure
Reason_. I like reading and talking really slowly. Learnt this lesson
from Nietzsche so patient with strange phenomena. I'm in no rush to
turn from the Heidegger of the twenties even when I read in the _Basic
Concepts_ on the "claim of the inception of history", of the saying,
_meleta to pan_ (taking into care beings as a whole). You asked me
'about' "taking care of...". Well, I thought, that in my present
circumstances I couldn't take care of anything. I'm not exactly the most
responsible guy you'll meet. Nothing seems to claim my responsibility,
no, nothing could possibly need my responsibility or want it. Maybe
"taking care of beings as a whole" doesn't imply defending this
or that but a readyness to act on the behalf of whatever is being
prosecuted in a particular occasion be that perceived as good or bad
doesn't matter. I'm potentially carefull, prudent in this sense which
points to indeterminacy doesn't it as much it points to a certain surplus?
But the subject heading says "ontological difference" between being
beings which Heidegger writes is a distinction (_krinein_ in Greek)
made not only between one being and another but between being and
beings that is also an inception, the very initiative of transcedental
philosophical research where one departs from the domain of beings. He
adds, "in doing so we are not simply taking over unaltered the concept
of the transcendental in Kant, although we are adopting its original
sense and its true tendency, perhaps still concealed from Kant. We are
surmounting beings in order to reach being" (BPoP, H22-23). It's clear
to me that being-in-the-world is transcendence. When I used the
expression "projection of understanding" which you queried me on, less
confusing, would be to say, "projection or casting of a world" and
wouldn't this be an interpretion of interpretation in Heidegger's sense
which involves the equiprimordial operation of understanding,
affectivity, and speech. Interpretation is remembrance as much as
anticipation and the insight of a moment.
As I have it, being-in-the-world repeates and transforms Kant's
transcedental imagination which is wedged in-between cognition and
sensibility. In an older language you have: mind-soul-body.
So, in this casting forth which can be described, as a remembering step
backwards that listens to the claim of the inception of history as much
as an anticipation of an unknown future; there is first the move from
beings to being *within* the OD and then there is the bracketing of
the ontoligical difference as a whole and that which becomes distinct
then. I remember back in my lurking days on this list listening to you
respond to questions regarding your odd spelling of being as "beyng".
My question, asking for clarity, is wether or not you are using the
word "beyng" to indicate that which would come out into the open with
the bracketting of the OD as a whole or with the withdrawal of
intentionality (at least in the modern sense that we get from Brentano
and Husserl)? Or maybe you would describe the operation that brings
into play an odd spelling like beyng in a different way altogether? The
deeper difference as Heidegger writes in _Basic Concepts_ would point
out a *distinction* as a *distinction* between being and beings, an
absolute difference outside all modality or which is impossible to show
in any mode and so interrupts the operation of interpretation or at
least indicates its limit?
You asked what "intensification" meant for me? Intensification occurs
with the projection or casting forth of a world, with the
transcendental operation indicative of being-in-the-world which is a
resolute holding out that resists the determination of Dasein's ownmost
possibility and therefore gives freedom, broadens a horizon. Rather
than being full of informative idle talk, Dasein is "ready for..."
whatever the occasion demands. World then maybe you can see, would not
some sort of universal but an individuated uniqueness, singularity.
Kan't talks about, as Nietzsche knew, a skeptical epoche. He was after
all concerned with educating judges, no?
The question that seems to emerge and be cast out into the open now,
seems to be that of how the operation of "resolute attunement" gives an
opening move, an incipient referential context that is dynamic, a unique
world held out in, not "the", but a clearing.
One more remark, on German page 213-214 of _BPoP_ Heidegger writes
this: "The being of finite entities, wether things or persons, is from
the beginning conceived in the horizon of production as producedness,
and certainly in a direction that does not directly coincide with that
of ancient ontology but nevertheless belongs to it and descends from
it."
Question: in "departing", twisting free from the OD is one not also
withdrawing from the horizon of production as producedness? To 'work'
outside this horizon implies that thought doesn't involve any
producedness and so there is that which not actualizable, that which
remains a potential resource that can't be made productive? There
is something utterly useless in philosophy which is why it's a general
economy in Bataille's sense, wow, way off topic, Oh well.
Ariosto
_________________________________________________________________
Designer Mail isn't just fun to send, it's fun to receive. Use special stationery, fonts and colors. 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 ---