The discursive regularity provisonally called Heidegger? Why not
the nondiscursive (unthought) regularity? Why even call him
Heidegger? We could just assign him a bar code. Perhaps we could
render his thought into a set of heuristics that could be used to
write a computer program that would continuously generate new texts
under the name Heidegger.
Does anyone really think that Heidegger's work is so programatic
that it reduces to dicursive regularity?
If anything, the regularities which can be observed in the work stem
from something that exceeds the work, a non-constant trajectory of
thinking--with an immanent logic that cannot be reduced to his
discourse, in other words, a human be-ing.
One should be able to see this once one reflects Dreyfus's prescient
critique of artificial intelligence back upon the nontotalizable
work of thinking from whence it emerged (Heidegger).
And if so, then one wants to ask: Why do we find common reference
to a 'discursive regularity' from as deep a reader of Heidegger as
Schuermann? To protect the thought from its contamination by the
man?
No theoretical prophylactic can sever us from the task of responding
to issues raised by the simple Faktung that it was a man named
Heidegger who wrote Heidegger's works.
Iain Thomson
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
the nondiscursive (unthought) regularity? Why even call him
Heidegger? We could just assign him a bar code. Perhaps we could
render his thought into a set of heuristics that could be used to
write a computer program that would continuously generate new texts
under the name Heidegger.
Does anyone really think that Heidegger's work is so programatic
that it reduces to dicursive regularity?
If anything, the regularities which can be observed in the work stem
from something that exceeds the work, a non-constant trajectory of
thinking--with an immanent logic that cannot be reduced to his
discourse, in other words, a human be-ing.
One should be able to see this once one reflects Dreyfus's prescient
critique of artificial intelligence back upon the nontotalizable
work of thinking from whence it emerged (Heidegger).
And if so, then one wants to ask: Why do we find common reference
to a 'discursive regularity' from as deep a reader of Heidegger as
Schuermann? To protect the thought from its contamination by the
man?
No theoretical prophylactic can sever us from the task of responding
to issues raised by the simple Faktung that it was a man named
Heidegger who wrote Heidegger's works.
Iain Thomson
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------