>Peter Durigon wrote:
>That which is thought in the "relativistic" metaphor which thinks the
>unity of "matter curving space" and "space-time telling matter how to
>move" is quite subtle, so another way to attempt to gain insight into
>it is to think the light held in gravity by the very nature of its
>movement of lighting, clearing a gravitational space for itself. Or
>again, to think the radiative, emmanative character of light as always
>held-back, and so caught in gravity from the start. Heidegger names
>this in SZ by the formula that every "entwurf" (light) is "geworfene"
>(gravity).
>
>As a result, I would reverse your conclusion about the transcendental
>structures of SZ, that they are "in spite of the manner in which a
>given culture chooses to articulate its being," and so would say that
>rather they allow for it.
I may be falling victim to the vagaries of my own metaphor here and
I'll admit that I find myself struggling to grasp the complexities of the
underlying physics of light which you appeal to as means of presenting your
position. So I'm afraid I'm standing in the shadow of our mutual metaphor at
the moment.
Are you saying that the transcendental structures advanced in SZ
function causally to create a clearing? On the one hand, that kind of top
down account appears too Platonic. On the other hand, to argue from the
bottom up leads one in the geneology direction that Foucault undertook and
from that perspective the relevance of transcendental structures becomes
questionable.
I think the account in SZ is most persuasive when read from the
perspective of the participant. From that vantage point the reality of
worlds worlding seems unassailable. Explanations of how the clearing came
about are fundamentally related back to an understanding of our present
predicament.
Part of the thinking I have been putting forward here has been, from
the perspective of the participant, one's position in the clearing, or on
the board of play, filters the manner in which the world worlds. I doubt
seriously I can see the full spectrum of the light that the clearing
affords. I've been studying the manner in which worlds world for more than
a decade now, and in spite of the tools I have acquired along the way, I
still find that it is very difficult to see beyond my own sphere of
experience. For example, I doubt seriously I have any real understanding of
how either the very wealthy or the very poor interpret themselves or their
world. I'm probably equally ignorant of the differences that accompany
ethnic, religious, and regional interpretations. From the perspective of
the participant one can talk about a unified interpretation of being which
maps onto, or immanates from beneath my world, but there are limits to my
field of perception, and at some point the my clearing transforms into my
horizon.
It strikes me as foolish to imagine that my horizon line is also the
horizon of the clearing itself. This picture leads to two possible
conclusions: First, one could argue that there is just one clearing and any
movement in any direction will demonstrate that the region beyond my view is
no different that the region I inhabit now. Second, one could argue that the
fabric of the culture is woven out of a variety of materials and that while
there may be some threads that extend through the entire bolt, many threads
are shorter thus allowing different regions of the cloth to take on a
different texture.
Hagen Finley
Berkeley, CA
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
>That which is thought in the "relativistic" metaphor which thinks the
>unity of "matter curving space" and "space-time telling matter how to
>move" is quite subtle, so another way to attempt to gain insight into
>it is to think the light held in gravity by the very nature of its
>movement of lighting, clearing a gravitational space for itself. Or
>again, to think the radiative, emmanative character of light as always
>held-back, and so caught in gravity from the start. Heidegger names
>this in SZ by the formula that every "entwurf" (light) is "geworfene"
>(gravity).
>
>As a result, I would reverse your conclusion about the transcendental
>structures of SZ, that they are "in spite of the manner in which a
>given culture chooses to articulate its being," and so would say that
>rather they allow for it.
I may be falling victim to the vagaries of my own metaphor here and
I'll admit that I find myself struggling to grasp the complexities of the
underlying physics of light which you appeal to as means of presenting your
position. So I'm afraid I'm standing in the shadow of our mutual metaphor at
the moment.
Are you saying that the transcendental structures advanced in SZ
function causally to create a clearing? On the one hand, that kind of top
down account appears too Platonic. On the other hand, to argue from the
bottom up leads one in the geneology direction that Foucault undertook and
from that perspective the relevance of transcendental structures becomes
questionable.
I think the account in SZ is most persuasive when read from the
perspective of the participant. From that vantage point the reality of
worlds worlding seems unassailable. Explanations of how the clearing came
about are fundamentally related back to an understanding of our present
predicament.
Part of the thinking I have been putting forward here has been, from
the perspective of the participant, one's position in the clearing, or on
the board of play, filters the manner in which the world worlds. I doubt
seriously I can see the full spectrum of the light that the clearing
affords. I've been studying the manner in which worlds world for more than
a decade now, and in spite of the tools I have acquired along the way, I
still find that it is very difficult to see beyond my own sphere of
experience. For example, I doubt seriously I have any real understanding of
how either the very wealthy or the very poor interpret themselves or their
world. I'm probably equally ignorant of the differences that accompany
ethnic, religious, and regional interpretations. From the perspective of
the participant one can talk about a unified interpretation of being which
maps onto, or immanates from beneath my world, but there are limits to my
field of perception, and at some point the my clearing transforms into my
horizon.
It strikes me as foolish to imagine that my horizon line is also the
horizon of the clearing itself. This picture leads to two possible
conclusions: First, one could argue that there is just one clearing and any
movement in any direction will demonstrate that the region beyond my view is
no different that the region I inhabit now. Second, one could argue that the
fabric of the culture is woven out of a variety of materials and that while
there may be some threads that extend through the entire bolt, many threads
are shorter thus allowing different regions of the cloth to take on a
different texture.
Hagen Finley
Berkeley, CA
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------