RE: Heidegger/Irigaray

Yes, good idea, but how about doing it off list?

Stuart

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of michaelP
Sent: 26 November 2004 07:04
To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Heidegger/Irigaray


Stu-Art a while back:

from moi:

>> 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...

> thanks Michael. okay, in theory this sounds like a good idea. let's see
how
> it works in practice. As for the texts, i have both, and both in the
> original language and translation.
>

Hi Stuart (and Calypso?), sorry for the delay, if you are both (and anyone
else) interested, I shall kick off shortly (just coming to the end of a
bunch of deadlined paid work, and this project {i.e., irigaray} requires a
long slow thoughtful close readings, not possible whilst clients scream from
their low rooftops), with a reading of irigaray's first chapter of her
'forgetting...' text: next week then.

regards

michaelP



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of michaelP
> Sent: 07 November 2004 11:00
> To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: anti or antique heidegger?
>
>
> 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.
>

>
> 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 ---
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>


--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---



--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

Replies
Re: Heidegger/Irigaray, michaelP
Partial thread listing: