Stuart you wrote:
> Dear Jan
>
> Many thanks for this. I've been waiting a few days to respond, hoping to
> find the time to give it some proper attention. That hasn't happened, and so
> I have the post printed hoping to find time at some later point. But thank
> you.
>
> I'm also finding this list, yet again, not to be worth the effort. For every
> interesting, thoughtful post, there is a mountain of crap. I type quickly
> but think slowly, and wish that others were the same.
Hi stuart, wondered whether you might be interested in joining in a
discussion directed towards irigaray's critique of heidegger and perhaps the
relation between her 'forgotten air' text and heidegger's 'contributions'
text? It would be necessary for at least one of those texts to be available
to you. Fancy it? We can take it dead slow and thoughtfully...
regards
michaelP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jan
> Straathof
> Sent: 01 November 2004 02:36
> To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: anti or antique heidegger?
>
>
> Hi Stuart, you wrote:
>
>>.... - but it seems to me that in a sense the Beitraege acts more as a
>>wealth of ideas than does Being and Time. We need to remember when
>>this text was written, and that it was not published until 13 years after
>>Heidegger's death. Much in it is new and unforeseen, ....
>
> Oh certainly, i find the Beitraege equally as rich as SuZ and its poetic
> and rizomatic flow of composition is much more inspiring than the
> dry analytical rigour of SuZ. Its spontanious character manytimes
> gives one the impression of reading a notebook or a diary, and i was
> also surprised by the sketchy listings of short comments and the
> modelling of schemes [cf. 64. Machenschaft; 65. Das Unwesen des
> Seyns], i immediately recognized this because it is very much the
> way i think too.
>
>>I'm interested in the idea that "the fall" can be linked to Machenschaft,
>>and Technik and perhaps you could say more.
>
> As i said in my previous post the links that i see are more of the kind
> of formal parallels and hermeneutic strategies than a matter of strict
> identity. I don't think that Heidegger is contending that Technik is a
> religious phenonemon, but in the way he is approaching the question
> of the essence of Technik [cf. Die Technik und die Kehre, 1962] he
> uses a hermeneutic strategy that imo very much resembles an exegesis
> of the biblical theme of the fall. But his approach always remains an
> provisional questioning, because questioning is the piety of thinking.
>
> 1. If we look at the Adamistic myth of the "original sin" and "the fall"
> [cf. Genesis 3] we are confronted with the ancient question of the
> origin of evil. The story tell us how the snake seduced Eve and how
> Eve then seduced Adam to take and eat the fruits from the Tree of
> Knowledge (the Tree of Science). In this act of free will, disobeying
> the command of God and thus seperating himself from her divine and
> paradisical ur-state, man opened its eyes and obtained insight in good
> and evil, in truth and error, now forever wondering as naked mortals,
> imprisoned in a brute and contingent world. Later in the Kabbala the
> metaphor of the Tree [cf. 10 Sephorit] keeps playing an important role
> in the (dangerous human quest of) mystical unity, or better re-union,
> of man with God.
>
> But there is a basic tension and ambuigity in this saga, because the
> question still remains: wherein lies the origin of evil ? Does evil
> reside in nature, or does evil lie in the actions of man ? Is evil an
> essential a force that comes from outside, contaminating us, or is
> evil the sole responsability of human free behaviour ? Or put even
> more simple: is evil in the tree (apple) or is evil our plucking and
> eating ? Is evil external or is evil internal ? And this ambuigity gets
> even stronger if we consider that Adam's primordial sin becomes the
> unit of heredity. For the Jewish people the original sin marked them
> with a sense of eternal guilt which urged them to ongoing penitence.
>
> By the apostle Paul the phenomenon of evil got something external,
> sin was not an invention of the first man, it was more like a mythical
> quantity that transcended the person of Adam. Yet where Adam was
> the man that had introduced and lead man into sin, it would be Christ
> (the second Adam) that will rescue us and guide us out of the realm
> of evil. For Augustinus it is the opposite: evil is a human tendency, a
> purely interal aspect, it is an intentional act: "sin must nowhere else be
> looked for than in a person's free will" [cf. Retractationes I.]. And with
> Luther this all got intensified to dramatic proportions, here evil is both
> external and internal; we are not only thrown into an evil world, but
> through loss of free will, i.e. in the experience of a will that neverthe-
> less escapes its freedom, we continually accumulate evil in our sinfull
> behaviour too. Luther saw no other way than a radical break with the
> Roman Church, a turn he saw more than justified in the words of Paul:
> "Wherever however sins increased, in abundance we found the grace of
> God." [Rom.5:20]
>
> 2. In the first paragraph of _Die Technik und die Kehre_ Heidegger sets
> the stage of his enquiry: his aim is that he wants to question Technik
> in preparation to get into a free relationship with it. To accomplish
> this we need a way of thinking that leads us to the essence of Technik,
> because without this essential insight we stay bound and *imprisoned*
> in an everday grip of immersion or quasi-neutrality, without noticing
> ever the limits of our un-freedom in the plethora of technical devices
> that surround and enclose us, even as we reject them.
>
> In the next paragraphs Heidegger discusses the *internal vs. external*
> problem, i.e. the question if the essence of Technik [techne] must be
> understood as solely a human cause, an human invention of poetic or
> instrumental activity that shows, brings forth, designs and engineers
> new things and arte-facts [cf. aition/causa = verschulden (owing guilt)
> = herstellen, entbergen (showing in the open)], or else, that her essence
> must be understood as coming from and determined by outside forces,
> i.e. a system of cybernetic relations and autonomous self-organization
> [cf. Bestand], steering [Geschick], reclaiming [herausfordern] and thus
> casting man into a supra-human constellation [cf. Gestell].
>
> Heidegger answers this question with a Lutheran move, when he says
> that the essence of Technik lies neither merely outside, nor inside nor
> through human activity [cf. TK:23]; and it is here that the question of
> human freedom becomes urgent. Heidegger now proposes a new view
> on the essence of human freedom. Freedom must not be understood as
> some unlimited, unbound or arbitrary quality of the will; no, freedom
> must first be understood as the ability of opening up and re-sponding
> to the happing of truth as un-concealment [Lichtung] and only within
> this liberating sensitivity we become prepared to gain insight in the
> true dangers that reside concealed in the essence of modern technology.
>
> According to Heidegger the most dangerous aspect of Technik-Gestell
> lies in a misunderstanding and misinterpretation i.e. a loss of human
> freedom (again a Lutheran moment). Without a clear view on freedom
> as openness, we mistakenly trust all technological progress as liberating,
> are in danger of loosing contact with our own essential self and mask
> the essence of truth, hiding her original poetic shining as Lichtung. In
> an echo to the word of Paul [Rom.5:20] Hoelderlin is called in to give
> solace: "Wo aber Gefahr ist, waechst Das Rettende auch." [Wherever danger
> is, always already rescue grows near.]
>
> In the last, concluding part of the essay _Die Kehre_ Heidegger turns
> his attention to a possible new and free relationship to technology and
> -in fact- in general to our being-in-the-world. What is required here is
> a new insight [Einblick] of our essence as human beings. If the essence
> of human freedom is able to turn itself to and from this Ein-blick to
> create [Entwurf] a free and open co-re-spondence to the call of this
> new vision [Ausblick] on Being [Sein], only then can we, as mortals,
> gain access and insight into its divine truth and save-keeping
> [Wahrheit,Wahrnis]. If not, we stay powerless in a state of refusal and
> failure, i.e
> a state of oblivion, digression, shortfall and sin [i.e.
> Seinsverfallenheit, Seinsvergessenheit]. If and when this turning-point
> will happen, we do
> not know, because it's not possible to calculate or predict it: the Kehre
> [cf. Bekehren, Bekehrung = conversion] is like the gift of conversion,
> it can happen [Ereignis/revelation] at any moment, it is a moment of
> grace, suddenly and unexpected, Lichtung is a flash of lighting [Saul
> on his way to Damascus].
>
>
> Together we wait in silence
> and the world comes nearest,
> - hope -
> what will happen tomorrow
> is not without us and our sharing.
>
> yours,
> Jan
>
>
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> Dear Jan
>
> Many thanks for this. I've been waiting a few days to respond, hoping to
> find the time to give it some proper attention. That hasn't happened, and so
> I have the post printed hoping to find time at some later point. But thank
> you.
>
> I'm also finding this list, yet again, not to be worth the effort. For every
> interesting, thoughtful post, there is a mountain of crap. I type quickly
> but think slowly, and wish that others were the same.
Hi stuart, wondered whether you might be interested in joining in a
discussion directed towards irigaray's critique of heidegger and perhaps the
relation between her 'forgotten air' text and heidegger's 'contributions'
text? It would be necessary for at least one of those texts to be available
to you. Fancy it? We can take it dead slow and thoughtfully...
regards
michaelP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jan
> Straathof
> Sent: 01 November 2004 02:36
> To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: anti or antique heidegger?
>
>
> Hi Stuart, you wrote:
>
>>.... - but it seems to me that in a sense the Beitraege acts more as a
>>wealth of ideas than does Being and Time. We need to remember when
>>this text was written, and that it was not published until 13 years after
>>Heidegger's death. Much in it is new and unforeseen, ....
>
> Oh certainly, i find the Beitraege equally as rich as SuZ and its poetic
> and rizomatic flow of composition is much more inspiring than the
> dry analytical rigour of SuZ. Its spontanious character manytimes
> gives one the impression of reading a notebook or a diary, and i was
> also surprised by the sketchy listings of short comments and the
> modelling of schemes [cf. 64. Machenschaft; 65. Das Unwesen des
> Seyns], i immediately recognized this because it is very much the
> way i think too.
>
>>I'm interested in the idea that "the fall" can be linked to Machenschaft,
>>and Technik and perhaps you could say more.
>
> As i said in my previous post the links that i see are more of the kind
> of formal parallels and hermeneutic strategies than a matter of strict
> identity. I don't think that Heidegger is contending that Technik is a
> religious phenonemon, but in the way he is approaching the question
> of the essence of Technik [cf. Die Technik und die Kehre, 1962] he
> uses a hermeneutic strategy that imo very much resembles an exegesis
> of the biblical theme of the fall. But his approach always remains an
> provisional questioning, because questioning is the piety of thinking.
>
> 1. If we look at the Adamistic myth of the "original sin" and "the fall"
> [cf. Genesis 3] we are confronted with the ancient question of the
> origin of evil. The story tell us how the snake seduced Eve and how
> Eve then seduced Adam to take and eat the fruits from the Tree of
> Knowledge (the Tree of Science). In this act of free will, disobeying
> the command of God and thus seperating himself from her divine and
> paradisical ur-state, man opened its eyes and obtained insight in good
> and evil, in truth and error, now forever wondering as naked mortals,
> imprisoned in a brute and contingent world. Later in the Kabbala the
> metaphor of the Tree [cf. 10 Sephorit] keeps playing an important role
> in the (dangerous human quest of) mystical unity, or better re-union,
> of man with God.
>
> But there is a basic tension and ambuigity in this saga, because the
> question still remains: wherein lies the origin of evil ? Does evil
> reside in nature, or does evil lie in the actions of man ? Is evil an
> essential a force that comes from outside, contaminating us, or is
> evil the sole responsability of human free behaviour ? Or put even
> more simple: is evil in the tree (apple) or is evil our plucking and
> eating ? Is evil external or is evil internal ? And this ambuigity gets
> even stronger if we consider that Adam's primordial sin becomes the
> unit of heredity. For the Jewish people the original sin marked them
> with a sense of eternal guilt which urged them to ongoing penitence.
>
> By the apostle Paul the phenomenon of evil got something external,
> sin was not an invention of the first man, it was more like a mythical
> quantity that transcended the person of Adam. Yet where Adam was
> the man that had introduced and lead man into sin, it would be Christ
> (the second Adam) that will rescue us and guide us out of the realm
> of evil. For Augustinus it is the opposite: evil is a human tendency, a
> purely interal aspect, it is an intentional act: "sin must nowhere else be
> looked for than in a person's free will" [cf. Retractationes I.]. And with
> Luther this all got intensified to dramatic proportions, here evil is both
> external and internal; we are not only thrown into an evil world, but
> through loss of free will, i.e. in the experience of a will that neverthe-
> less escapes its freedom, we continually accumulate evil in our sinfull
> behaviour too. Luther saw no other way than a radical break with the
> Roman Church, a turn he saw more than justified in the words of Paul:
> "Wherever however sins increased, in abundance we found the grace of
> God." [Rom.5:20]
>
> 2. In the first paragraph of _Die Technik und die Kehre_ Heidegger sets
> the stage of his enquiry: his aim is that he wants to question Technik
> in preparation to get into a free relationship with it. To accomplish
> this we need a way of thinking that leads us to the essence of Technik,
> because without this essential insight we stay bound and *imprisoned*
> in an everday grip of immersion or quasi-neutrality, without noticing
> ever the limits of our un-freedom in the plethora of technical devices
> that surround and enclose us, even as we reject them.
>
> In the next paragraphs Heidegger discusses the *internal vs. external*
> problem, i.e. the question if the essence of Technik [techne] must be
> understood as solely a human cause, an human invention of poetic or
> instrumental activity that shows, brings forth, designs and engineers
> new things and arte-facts [cf. aition/causa = verschulden (owing guilt)
> = herstellen, entbergen (showing in the open)], or else, that her essence
> must be understood as coming from and determined by outside forces,
> i.e. a system of cybernetic relations and autonomous self-organization
> [cf. Bestand], steering [Geschick], reclaiming [herausfordern] and thus
> casting man into a supra-human constellation [cf. Gestell].
>
> Heidegger answers this question with a Lutheran move, when he says
> that the essence of Technik lies neither merely outside, nor inside nor
> through human activity [cf. TK:23]; and it is here that the question of
> human freedom becomes urgent. Heidegger now proposes a new view
> on the essence of human freedom. Freedom must not be understood as
> some unlimited, unbound or arbitrary quality of the will; no, freedom
> must first be understood as the ability of opening up and re-sponding
> to the happing of truth as un-concealment [Lichtung] and only within
> this liberating sensitivity we become prepared to gain insight in the
> true dangers that reside concealed in the essence of modern technology.
>
> According to Heidegger the most dangerous aspect of Technik-Gestell
> lies in a misunderstanding and misinterpretation i.e. a loss of human
> freedom (again a Lutheran moment). Without a clear view on freedom
> as openness, we mistakenly trust all technological progress as liberating,
> are in danger of loosing contact with our own essential self and mask
> the essence of truth, hiding her original poetic shining as Lichtung. In
> an echo to the word of Paul [Rom.5:20] Hoelderlin is called in to give
> solace: "Wo aber Gefahr ist, waechst Das Rettende auch." [Wherever danger
> is, always already rescue grows near.]
>
> In the last, concluding part of the essay _Die Kehre_ Heidegger turns
> his attention to a possible new and free relationship to technology and
> -in fact- in general to our being-in-the-world. What is required here is
> a new insight [Einblick] of our essence as human beings. If the essence
> of human freedom is able to turn itself to and from this Ein-blick to
> create [Entwurf] a free and open co-re-spondence to the call of this
> new vision [Ausblick] on Being [Sein], only then can we, as mortals,
> gain access and insight into its divine truth and save-keeping
> [Wahrheit,Wahrnis]. If not, we stay powerless in a state of refusal and
> failure, i.e
> a state of oblivion, digression, shortfall and sin [i.e.
> Seinsverfallenheit, Seinsvergessenheit]. If and when this turning-point
> will happen, we do
> not know, because it's not possible to calculate or predict it: the Kehre
> [cf. Bekehren, Bekehrung = conversion] is like the gift of conversion,
> it can happen [Ereignis/revelation] at any moment, it is a moment of
> grace, suddenly and unexpected, Lichtung is a flash of lighting [Saul
> on his way to Damascus].
>
>
> Together we wait in silence
> and the world comes nearest,
> - hope -
> what will happen tomorrow
> is not without us and our sharing.
>
> yours,
> Jan
>
>
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---