Oh yes I am surprised as we write. We are opening up Heidgger in a way that
has not been done on this list.
Everybody is always talking of non-metaphysical, not-anymore-metaphysical
and so on. But nobody DETECTS it where it is: right under the nose.
Indeed, things ARE not, when not seen. I'm in no way an exception. Reading
Heidegger on Hoelderlin say 20 years ago, i saw nothing, really nothing.
Even that is not wholly negative...
lol... it's very positive as Derrida might say it's what leads to a series of affirmations which is our responsibility beyond all obligations and duties. Heidegger in the _THe Metaphysical Foundations of Logic_ (GA28) writes that "the world is nothing". It is a "nihil originarium" arising with temporalization or being-in-the-world, disclosive transcendence, etc. So he says here in section thirteen that temporality has a "peculiar productivity... where the product is precisely a peculiar nothing".The "for-the-sake-of ..." of Being and Time here is a grounding in a nothing which is not non-being or being, 'is not' is or is not. For Buddha getting caught in is and is not constitutes suffering. It's interesting to notice the use of Heraclitus (123, nature loves to hide) in section 14. He is confident in disclosing truth at this time (summer of 28) and so he interprets aletheia as meaning that "Beings must first of all be torn from concealment; concealment must be removed from beings, and it gets removed inasmuch as temporalizing temporality provides the occasion for world-entry." As the thirties come along Heidegger becomes very very prudent. It's time to think the hiding of ... as such or why is Heraclitus called "the obscure". I think I will be prudent and not go on into anymore or actual details while saying that in general it would be a good a idea but not just yet, not now. I'll delay till tommorow when I feel more confident with actual real messy details lol...
Would you say that the release of a
vibrational tension or antagonistic harmony then is destiny? Everything then
has its destiny in so far as each thing no matter what its is has this vital
impulse or life developing inside of it. Schelling in his book on mythology
and other places talks about the pythagorian dyad and Boehme would say each
thing has both justice and mercy working through it and unfolding with it.
Read Schelling rene he puts all the emphasis on seeing how non-being and
being create together a sort of anguish whose image is the flicker of a
flame or a corkscrewing vine.
Thanks for reminding. Following the subjectivity thread, Schelling could
not have reached the belonging together of the different, as it is (differently)
in Herakleitos, Hoelderlin, Heidegger. What, then, about the 'Hen kai pan' of
the three schoolmates in Tuebingen? (Hegel, Schelling, Hoelderlin)
After Herakleitos, in GA39, comes...Hegel!
Slow down you are going too fast. You jump to a crazy conclusion on Schelling that is pretty much private in its obscurity. I think that in thinking a crisis in reason Schelling thinks a de-cision that is a differentiation pointing to difference or a relation? To me this sounds like the EXCESS of interiorization since we hear 'the tone', a kind of melancholic bittersweetness that says we are in a scene of tragedy hinting at a comic future which perhaps brings us to the epiphany of tradition. I don't know what about the 'Hen kai pan'? Before schelling and holderlin comes... FICHTE! I'm trying to avoid Hegel like you wouldn't believe. The three amigos are thinking with fichte while differentiating themselves from each other. It's natural for three friends who are close to move away from each other and stake out their own territory. Since they are all grounded on fichte it would be a good idea to read fichte otherwise we are going to end up Hegelianizing any future conversation with the rest of the academic herd and not hear schelling or holderlin but a hegelianized schelling and holderlin not to mention a hegelianized everything.
One thing is: being after unity in difference, like Hegel and Schelling were,
and another: change theatre like Hoelderlin did. Hoelderlin managed - how is
a riddle to me, but it involves the way from philosophy to poetry, from concept
to language - to break through subjectivism. (sthing that Schelling could not,
despite all efforts in his late years; also not: Nietzsche, with him it's tragedy).
This is sthing that goes so deep, that it is essential that it is not seen, and
Hoelderlin forgotten.
Novalis forgotten too whose approach through an underground darkness is perhaps more 'true' to the enigmatic nature that always remains to be thought and drives us crazy. It seems to me that we have to see that any use of language is always and already a veil that can only indicate as I loose my voice SHOUTING that which is in excess of language, a tear... for instance or laughter... or a private hermetic peculiar experience. How can I describe to you what I feel in so many words? It's clearly impossible ;-).
tympan
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---