First some snippets from Lois' interaction with David,
not intended to form a syntagm of any kind, but coming
out of their back-and-forth on "truth".
"Technology in the deep sense has its truth and can't
be argued with (like using a costs-benefits analysis
to argue against daming the Rhine, using modus ponens
to argue against formal logic)."
and
"How can language be dictated and dictating in your frame?"
and
"the Gestell? Being?"
--- It seems to me that truth operates in a particular
sphere or stratum of Being. Truth relates to discourse in
certain ways: there seems to be a heterogeneous but finite
range of beings which make truth *as such* possible. Truth
relates to a particular comportment of Dasein, just as
uncovering, as an event within disclosedness, is a
subspecies of the various modes of disclosedness available
to and constituting Dasein. The conditions of the
possibility of truth are things like uncovering, assertion,
interpretation, questioning, thematization, etc. You name
it. But it's not everything, only certain things. Being in
certain comportments of Dasein (and some of these would seem
to be everyday) develops into truth as an event in its
understanding of being: that being which understands being
in certain ways is then "in the truth".
So if we say: "technology has its truth", this is a little
fuzzy, imprecise. The first thing to say would seem to be:
"technology has its being (essence)". Granting an essence of
technology, then we can say: different kinds of truth
operate as species within the range of the total possible
modes of truth. Among these species of truth can be
"enframing". All technology enframes (for Heidegger), but
only some technology is enframing in truth *per se*.
There would seem to be two general modes of technological
truth: the *constitutional* truth which goes into making up
technology, just as there is always "understanding" in
being-in-the-world. Yet, just as but we obviously don't
call "everyday understanding" "thinking" or "thought" in
some kind of "clarified" or even "elevated" ("Continental
Thought", "What Is Called Thinking?", etc.) sense of the
term, so we might have to have a distinction made between
the "constitutive truth modes" of "all technology" and those
particular kinds of Truth which take the form enframing as
distinguished from other styles of Truth.
But: truth has its being, too. One of the themes that the
happening of truth can have as its matter is the question of
truth, via the question if Being, of the being of Dasein, or
not. Thus, for example, the question of the truth of
technology can take place in a technological form, or not. A
Nietzsche can question technology, for example. Or a poetic
or not so poetic Heidegger. These are more explicit
"elevated and clarified" Truth events. And, at the same
time, if the "everyday constitutive" truth also obtains for
technology, this means that the Dam on the river "sends a
message": "this river is standing reserve". The Dam maker,
city council, planners, home owners must speak of the dam,
in a sense, but we don't say that the dam has become
*thematic*. Yet, it has its substance in some way, and the
"message gets out": this river is power. Heidegger harps on
thought because unlike the unthematic everyday constitutive
truth of technology, the thematic and clarified truth of
philosophy (or the Other Thinking) and poetry can
(fatefully?, or is it precisely the opposite?) take up the
question of truth and recollect the other messages the river
can give.
Regards,
Tom
PS: I'd be careful about retranslating Heidegger's language,
as if one could "describe it from the outside". And I'd be
real, real careful about throwing in the word "reality".
---
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 ---
------------------
not intended to form a syntagm of any kind, but coming
out of their back-and-forth on "truth".
"Technology in the deep sense has its truth and can't
be argued with (like using a costs-benefits analysis
to argue against daming the Rhine, using modus ponens
to argue against formal logic)."
and
"How can language be dictated and dictating in your frame?"
and
"the Gestell? Being?"
--- It seems to me that truth operates in a particular
sphere or stratum of Being. Truth relates to discourse in
certain ways: there seems to be a heterogeneous but finite
range of beings which make truth *as such* possible. Truth
relates to a particular comportment of Dasein, just as
uncovering, as an event within disclosedness, is a
subspecies of the various modes of disclosedness available
to and constituting Dasein. The conditions of the
possibility of truth are things like uncovering, assertion,
interpretation, questioning, thematization, etc. You name
it. But it's not everything, only certain things. Being in
certain comportments of Dasein (and some of these would seem
to be everyday) develops into truth as an event in its
understanding of being: that being which understands being
in certain ways is then "in the truth".
So if we say: "technology has its truth", this is a little
fuzzy, imprecise. The first thing to say would seem to be:
"technology has its being (essence)". Granting an essence of
technology, then we can say: different kinds of truth
operate as species within the range of the total possible
modes of truth. Among these species of truth can be
"enframing". All technology enframes (for Heidegger), but
only some technology is enframing in truth *per se*.
There would seem to be two general modes of technological
truth: the *constitutional* truth which goes into making up
technology, just as there is always "understanding" in
being-in-the-world. Yet, just as but we obviously don't
call "everyday understanding" "thinking" or "thought" in
some kind of "clarified" or even "elevated" ("Continental
Thought", "What Is Called Thinking?", etc.) sense of the
term, so we might have to have a distinction made between
the "constitutive truth modes" of "all technology" and those
particular kinds of Truth which take the form enframing as
distinguished from other styles of Truth.
But: truth has its being, too. One of the themes that the
happening of truth can have as its matter is the question of
truth, via the question if Being, of the being of Dasein, or
not. Thus, for example, the question of the truth of
technology can take place in a technological form, or not. A
Nietzsche can question technology, for example. Or a poetic
or not so poetic Heidegger. These are more explicit
"elevated and clarified" Truth events. And, at the same
time, if the "everyday constitutive" truth also obtains for
technology, this means that the Dam on the river "sends a
message": "this river is standing reserve". The Dam maker,
city council, planners, home owners must speak of the dam,
in a sense, but we don't say that the dam has become
*thematic*. Yet, it has its substance in some way, and the
"message gets out": this river is power. Heidegger harps on
thought because unlike the unthematic everyday constitutive
truth of technology, the thematic and clarified truth of
philosophy (or the Other Thinking) and poetry can
(fatefully?, or is it precisely the opposite?) take up the
question of truth and recollect the other messages the river
can give.
Regards,
Tom
PS: I'd be careful about retranslating Heidegger's language,
as if one could "describe it from the outside". And I'd be
real, real careful about throwing in the word "reality".
---
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 ---
------------------