>
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 1995, Iain Thomson wrote saying that this is what
> interested him in our recent discussion:
>
> > the implicit (even explicit) ethical content of
> > ontological thinking; the attempt to deconstruct the metaphysical
> > tradition by subverting the Cartesian subject with the
> > phenomenological-existential analyses of Da-sein
> (snip)
> and perhaps even the
> > motivations underlying Heidegger's thinking of the authentic in B&T
> > as those motivations evolve in the later writings, all intersect
> > around a theme which your very dialogue both presupposes and
> > contributes to--the construction of the self that takes place in this
> > technological medium of communication.
>
> (snipped an account of Heidegger's feeling that typewriters distanced
> authors from their writing)
>
> > But here it is useful, for heuristic purposes at least, to
> > distinguish between Heidegger-the-man and the tools of thought and
> > critique which he left behind. So here I guess I am calling for a
> > little Heideggerian reflexivity: what sort of selves are we
> > constructing through this technological medium?
>
> (snip)
>
> And, finally the reason for the perverse element of
> > my fascination with your exchanges, why is hostility always on deck
> > (if not ready to hand)?
>
> Indeed. I ponder these issues myself. I am inclined to believe that the
> inclination to flame has to do with the modern identification of oneself
> with one's writing when writing is published on paper and subject to
> secondary referencing, when it becomes who one is. Here, our texts are
> much more fluid. It will be easier to disidentify if we change our
> minds, or to take in another's thoughts without treating them as the Other's.
> I hope we can shift to a less agonistic and more collaborative
> intraction, such as Lyotard (The Postmodern Condition) suggests.
>
> Can the propensity to the flame be
> > understood simply as a loss of the face-to-face
> ...
> > or does this ready rage not bespeak a more
> > inarticulate, if not ineffable longing, the longing for, and
> > readiness to battle for, a new self-understanding, a
> > post-metaphysical understanding of self articulated precisely
> > through this technological medium, a desire to seize the positive
> > potentialities of technology, perhaps achieving some measure of the
> > homecoming through alterity for which Heidegger called?
>
> Where do you read Heidegger calling for alterity?
>
> ..Lois Shawver
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
Lois- In his lecture on Hoelderlin's celebration of 'remembrance,'
Heidegger says that 'homecoming' must pass through "that otherness
from where alone a return home is possible" [GA 52, 189-90].
Iain
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 1995, Iain Thomson wrote saying that this is what
> interested him in our recent discussion:
>
> > the implicit (even explicit) ethical content of
> > ontological thinking; the attempt to deconstruct the metaphysical
> > tradition by subverting the Cartesian subject with the
> > phenomenological-existential analyses of Da-sein
> (snip)
> and perhaps even the
> > motivations underlying Heidegger's thinking of the authentic in B&T
> > as those motivations evolve in the later writings, all intersect
> > around a theme which your very dialogue both presupposes and
> > contributes to--the construction of the self that takes place in this
> > technological medium of communication.
>
> (snipped an account of Heidegger's feeling that typewriters distanced
> authors from their writing)
>
> > But here it is useful, for heuristic purposes at least, to
> > distinguish between Heidegger-the-man and the tools of thought and
> > critique which he left behind. So here I guess I am calling for a
> > little Heideggerian reflexivity: what sort of selves are we
> > constructing through this technological medium?
>
> (snip)
>
> And, finally the reason for the perverse element of
> > my fascination with your exchanges, why is hostility always on deck
> > (if not ready to hand)?
>
> Indeed. I ponder these issues myself. I am inclined to believe that the
> inclination to flame has to do with the modern identification of oneself
> with one's writing when writing is published on paper and subject to
> secondary referencing, when it becomes who one is. Here, our texts are
> much more fluid. It will be easier to disidentify if we change our
> minds, or to take in another's thoughts without treating them as the Other's.
> I hope we can shift to a less agonistic and more collaborative
> intraction, such as Lyotard (The Postmodern Condition) suggests.
>
> Can the propensity to the flame be
> > understood simply as a loss of the face-to-face
> ...
> > or does this ready rage not bespeak a more
> > inarticulate, if not ineffable longing, the longing for, and
> > readiness to battle for, a new self-understanding, a
> > post-metaphysical understanding of self articulated precisely
> > through this technological medium, a desire to seize the positive
> > potentialities of technology, perhaps achieving some measure of the
> > homecoming through alterity for which Heidegger called?
>
> Where do you read Heidegger calling for alterity?
>
> ..Lois Shawver
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
Lois- In his lecture on Hoelderlin's celebration of 'remembrance,'
Heidegger says that 'homecoming' must pass through "that otherness
from where alone a return home is possible" [GA 52, 189-90].
Iain
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------