Everything at once? That's precisely the problem. Against the ordered
Heideggerian methodicality (divisions, divisions, divisions) here is this
"everything", and worse: all at once! Chaos (Dionysus)! A nightmare. To broach
the issue of sex and what not successfully has to involve (probably) some
greater circumspection regarding style/form in some way, or else the
everything at once will effectively end the discussion and then people will
"get back to serious Heidegger". So let me put in that post as a prophylactic:
Someone will write:
Ok, well that foray was all well and good, but let me propose a slow reading
of The Origin of the Work of Art. I am concerned with the thingly quality of
the work of art and in particular how this relates to both Division X of Being
and Time and the essay, The Thing. Any comments?
Or something like that.
To handle the truth, one must in certain ways manage it (troublesome word) and
guard against: violence, polemos, hysteria, crisis, history, rigidity,
immediacy, etc. To try to work without feeling quite at home with the
metadiscourse that includes these very kinds of things and this very kind of
moment--that is to say, to work in the way that currently tends to prevail in
many spaces--is futile.
So I'm saying: it's a bad opening: but a bad opening can be a good opening
provided its badness can be taken as grist for the mill for a sensibility that
handles it. But if the sensiblity isn't there, then it's just plain bad. But
fear not! I'm here, so I'll try to interject this metadiscourse (so to speak;
metastaticity is really highly problematic and I'm using it as a service word
here) and invite others to stand in this along with me, and then we can talk
about sex and Heidegger to our hearts content.
A suggestion along the way: why not read some big fixtures in Being and Time
according to: having a lover, the temporality of making love, sexual
attraction and temporality, guilt (ugh!), solicitude (!), etc.?
Malgosia Askanas writes:
>Alan asks:
>
>> Using the word "pussy" is progress? It's not offensive?
>
>That wasn't the drift of my "progress" thing, BTW. But my answer is:
>it very much depends. Like most genital words, "pussy" can be an
>expression of anything from lyrical tenderness to contempt and hatred.
>So actually, it's quite a good opening into a philosophical discussion
>of sex: it invites everything to rush in at once.
>
>-m
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
---
There is no path to peace. Peace is the path.
Tom Blancato
tblancato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Eyes on Violence (nonviolence and human rights monitoring in Haiti)
Thoughtaction Collective (reparative justice project)
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
Heideggerian methodicality (divisions, divisions, divisions) here is this
"everything", and worse: all at once! Chaos (Dionysus)! A nightmare. To broach
the issue of sex and what not successfully has to involve (probably) some
greater circumspection regarding style/form in some way, or else the
everything at once will effectively end the discussion and then people will
"get back to serious Heidegger". So let me put in that post as a prophylactic:
Someone will write:
Ok, well that foray was all well and good, but let me propose a slow reading
of The Origin of the Work of Art. I am concerned with the thingly quality of
the work of art and in particular how this relates to both Division X of Being
and Time and the essay, The Thing. Any comments?
Or something like that.
To handle the truth, one must in certain ways manage it (troublesome word) and
guard against: violence, polemos, hysteria, crisis, history, rigidity,
immediacy, etc. To try to work without feeling quite at home with the
metadiscourse that includes these very kinds of things and this very kind of
moment--that is to say, to work in the way that currently tends to prevail in
many spaces--is futile.
So I'm saying: it's a bad opening: but a bad opening can be a good opening
provided its badness can be taken as grist for the mill for a sensibility that
handles it. But if the sensiblity isn't there, then it's just plain bad. But
fear not! I'm here, so I'll try to interject this metadiscourse (so to speak;
metastaticity is really highly problematic and I'm using it as a service word
here) and invite others to stand in this along with me, and then we can talk
about sex and Heidegger to our hearts content.
A suggestion along the way: why not read some big fixtures in Being and Time
according to: having a lover, the temporality of making love, sexual
attraction and temporality, guilt (ugh!), solicitude (!), etc.?
Malgosia Askanas writes:
>Alan asks:
>
>> Using the word "pussy" is progress? It's not offensive?
>
>That wasn't the drift of my "progress" thing, BTW. But my answer is:
>it very much depends. Like most genital words, "pussy" can be an
>expression of anything from lyrical tenderness to contempt and hatred.
>So actually, it's quite a good opening into a philosophical discussion
>of sex: it invites everything to rush in at once.
>
>-m
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
---
There is no path to peace. Peace is the path.
Tom Blancato
tblancato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Eyes on Violence (nonviolence and human rights monitoring in Haiti)
Thoughtaction Collective (reparative justice project)
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------