Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 10:20:00 +0100
From: Henk van Tuijl <Henk.van.Tuijl-AT-net.HCC.nl>
Subject: Re: the Geuvara happening


robert scheetz wrote:
> If discursive speech is a nihilistic technology vis a vis beyng,
> while poiesis is saving, Sartre's point that post modern philosophy
> is accomplished in art, not philosophy books, is correct.  Similarly,
> since "thinking" is an enframing, a reifying that submerges beyng; while
> praxis presences beyng...(in earnest of which MH, like Sartre, gave up
> brahminism for revolution; and in its default, returning, his "thinking" took
> the from of a "destruction of thinking"), Engineer Guevara is right,
> despite all his protestations about not wanting to diss anyone, in pointing to
> the absurdity (i.e. for heideggerians; i.e. persons once convinced on this
> doctrine of nihilation) of engaging the thought of Heidegger discursively.

Analysing a game of chess is not playing chess.
Why should we chess-players analyse our games?
Is that the question?

Henk


     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---