-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens michaelP
Verzonden: maandag 22 november 2004 18:15
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: incubation
renerecently:
> Trawny explains in a short note Heidegger's word of
> an incubation of the principle of reason, lasting
> more than 2000 years.
rene, help me: do you mean here the leibnitzean nothing happens without a
reason (ground)? every thing has a be-cause? only nothing happens with out a
reason...? no-thing IS without reason (ground)? Is this the leap that looks
back in the change of tone from beings (nothing is without reason) to be-ing
(nothing IS without reason)? One heck of a dizzying stimmung!
Michael, The Leibnizean nothing is no problem for Leibniz himself. (plus
facile que quelque chose). One reason for this is generally metaphysical,
insofar metaphysics is characterized by the so-called "Vorrang des Seienden",
pre-eminence of 'WHAT is', over against Being. Why can't metaphysics reach
this Being (Being itself)? Because to it it is precisely, as you say, no-thing,
not a thing, and therefore: nothing, nihil. It does not enter the metaphysical
sight, which is all eye for the Being-of-WHAT-is.
Here one can ask: but to Plato the idea of the good is the highest and not
things, Seiendes. But (dogmatically): the idea of the good is the asked for,
when what-is is questioned. How questioned? By asking WHAT is .... that which
is?! Or, otherwise: what is the ens qua ens? NB: The first 'ens' is not the
second. The first 'ens' is what we already (vaguely) understand as that which is.
The question asks specifically: what IS that really which is there for us all?
Plato: it is really visibility, idea. But watch what has happened: while Plato
writes on every page: turn to the idea (highest being), the outcome is that
WHAT-is is explained. What is, now appears in its entirety, as visibility.
(in 1930 Heidegger still thought that 'epekeina tes ousias' points to Being
ITSELF, but later he saw that he was wrong)
So, contrary to positivist critics of transcendentalisms, Heidegger's 'critics'
of metaphysics is the opposite: although according to metaphysics itself, it
treats Being, in reality it treats of beings, of THAT WHICH is. (on, ens, das
Seiende, being(s). Allbeit: insofar it is - entitas, Seiendheit, beingness.
Also Leibniz, who poses this one metaphysical question for in terms of unity,
after Descartes' two substances. I''l try to show that sthing very strange
happens in Leibniz. Everything is normal, insofar (the) nothing is not real.
Like in Thomas, where what-is-not-a-thing remains outside of God. Also the
Leibniz' principle of reason says: NO thing can be WITHOUT reason. The
accent (tone!) lies on the two negations, but so that everything that is
is pushed forward as legitimate. But now watch: the specific way that Leibniz
adopts the preeminence of things, contains a special feature. The principle
has this preeminence ITSELF as content! So that Heidegger writes: after so many
years of incubation, it is out now, and one would expect that from now on this
'grand' prinicple is going to rule. But that is precisely what not happens, at
least not explicitly. (explicitly only Schelling and Schopenhauer write on it)
The principle brings apparently the essence of metaphysics: that only beings are.
BUT THIS IS APPARENTLY FOR METAPHYSICS SO EVIDENT, THAT NO MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID
ABOUT IT. Remember how Heidegger begins: he states the principle, and then writes:
"What the sentence says, is clear." "Was der Satz aussagt, leuchtet ein."
But what is clear to metaphysics, is what should be questionable to us! But instead
it is even less questionable than to metaphysics. Heidegger: the principle of reason
is always and everywhere present in our everyday life. True, one would be very very
surprised if sthing happened without a reason, for instance that time falls out for
a moment, or when we would perceive the daily like in a dream. This everyday evidence
though, as innocent as it looks, is the obstacle, the necklace holding us down.
The exciting is that Heidegger knew it already in BT: everydayness. Without knowing
about the principle of reason, and that is: the relation of everyday understanding with
the history of metaphysics. In "Vom Wesen des Grundes" he does not see the decisive
point that i just brought (thanks to him): that the principle only speaks of beings,
and not of Being. That is: it also speaks of Being - when beings, then also Being - ,
but indirectly, and hiding.
It all depends on seeing hiding happening. But if we don't see it in everyday reality,
it makes no sense to go further.
Now you might detect in my writing a certain animosity: i want to make clear now and for
good, that there is a hiding esp. in clarity. But me too, i cannot but make clear, what is
of itself evading. Now the problem behind the S-P critics is: how must one speak, when one
wants to 'enhide', (er-schweigen), because what is not a being cannot be put forward like
a green leaf in the sentence 'the leaf is green'. And that is your point in your next quote,
but i must go now.
(i can't check what i wrote, but i have a good feeling)
regards (and thanks)
rene
Heidegger:
"Sein und Grund: das Selbe. Sein: der Ab-grund"
{be-ing and reason: the same. Be-ing: the abyss}
but if be-ing (the groundless, the abyssal) [is] the same as reason (the
ground that grounds beings) then be-ing is the groundless grounding; wow!
Is this incubation, the deferred/differed sending of be-ing, the all ways
coming never present?
Sounds like a bachian fugue to me...
regards
michaelP
Michael Pennamacoor
Abgrundrisse
tel: 01304 617626
fax: 0870 163 8935
e: michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.abgrundrisse.net
http://www.cafeshops.com/Abgrundrisse
http://michael-pennamacoor.fotopic.net
>
> 'Incubation' suggests a virus, a disease. To Juenger
> Heidegger speaks of 'the cancer'. Those following
> Heidegger's critics of Juenger -namely that he
> IDENTIFIES himself with power/work - maybe already
> felt reservation. And indeed: the volume 'Zu Juenger'
> ed. by Trawny' offer hundreds of pages Juenger-study,
> wherein Juenger is praised as the only real follower
> of Nietzsche, and at the same time the harshest
> criticism. (this 'at the same time' is the big
> obstacle for nowadays intelligence)
>
> In The principle of reason, i believe near the end,
> Heidegger mentions a 'temple sleep'. Now Trawny
> gave the clue to me: 'incubare' is originally:
> laying down and sleeping in a temple to let the
> god come closer.
>
> The main point of Princ. of reason is the change of tone.
> Without the change, both phases, for themselves, are
> concrete, stone. Everything depends on hearing how the
> tone of metaphysics, from Plato, via Cicero, to Descartes
> and Leibniz, gets more and more urging. Leibniz is very
> close, there's an unrest in his late letters, Heidegger
> writes.
>
> We cannot change the innumerable notes, but we can work
> towards hearing the change of tone, the moment of modulation.
> This moment is sudden and, like the passage of a god, can be
> missed, individually and/or by all. That's why we should sleep
> with the principle of demanded ground, that might turn out to
> be sthing very different from the principle of Leibniz' meta-
> physics, and hear a different tone in its now coercing character.
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---