>From: "Stuart Elden" <stuartelden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: RE: Heidegger/Irigaray
>Date: Fri, Nov 26, 2004, 11:09 am
>
> Yes, good idea, but how about doing it off list?
>
> Stuart
Fine, if you'd prefer (and Calypso's OK with that), but why? Unwelcome
interruptions, n'est pas? I was hoping more would wish to join in on
something genuinely to do with Heidegger and the texts themselves...
regards
michaelP
>
> -----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 ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: RE: Heidegger/Irigaray
>Date: Fri, Nov 26, 2004, 11:09 am
>
> Yes, good idea, but how about doing it off list?
>
> Stuart
Fine, if you'd prefer (and Calypso's OK with that), but why? Unwelcome
interruptions, n'est pas? I was hoping more would wish to join in on
something genuinely to do with Heidegger and the texts themselves...
regards
michaelP
>
> -----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 ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---