Well, ok, but I would add something else: that this "return to the new", to
the primordial, the incipient may also involve something which exceeds the
framework of remembrance.
R. or A. Wendel writes:
>At 09:25 PM 10/2/95 DST, you wrote:
>>At , you wrote:
>>
>>>R. or A. Wendel writes:
>>>>
>
>>>
>>>Ok.But how can we approach, staying in some ways within the discursive
>>>regularity provisionally called "Heidegger", somethinking like original
>>>thinking? Original not as in *necessariy* new (although perhaps the "new"
>>>has to be explored), but as in originating out of our own engagement of
>>>Being?
>>>
>
>Tom:
>My reply to your statement was not adequate. Indeed, there is something
>"new" that originates 'out of our engagement with Being' that needs to be
>thought. In Heidegger's view, our age corresponds to the closure of
>metaphysics. As such it engages us to someting 'new'. Only in pointing us to
>a new beginning, we are returned to the originating, to what incipiency
>meant before metaphysics gained preponderance. That is why I stated:
>" I would likewise not call it "new" but rather an attempt to recall what
>comes earliest and is most primordial.."
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
---
Where there is peace, there is war.
Tom Blancato
tblancato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Eyes on Violence (nonviolence and human rights monitoring in Haiti)
Thoughtaction Collective (reparative justice project)
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------