Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 15:30:41 -0800 From: Mike Staples <mstaples-AT-argusqa.com> Subject: Re: Archetypes henry sholar wrote: > 1) If language is the house of being, and 2) we are no longer > prying under, over, or against "objects" whether as appearance > or reality (for the soul, the "essence" of our subjectivity); but, > rather, > 3) we are ceaselessly disclosing what is given (by language) in > manifold worldliness, then 4) "archetypes" (Jungian or otherwise) > "paradigms" (Kuhnian or otherwise) "traces" (Derridian or otherwise) > "archaeologies/genealogies" (Foucaudian or otherwise) could well be > as dramatically unifying and gathering-together as we would > want to imagine, poetically. So that is one vote "for", I take it, given the constraints that follow:Henry: > But, the tendency, the intention (an informal use of that term), is > always to corral an onto-theo-logical ground to these things > (objects), > figuring that we have a finality of understanding and have hit > bedrock. MS: So, this is what I ment about the patterning of "stuff" (e.g., behavioral patterns, atomic patterns, molecular patterns, geometric patterns...) isn't the issue. The issue comes about when Plato decides that the pattern is the "real" (onto-theo-logical ground of these things), and the "thing" isn't. Do I got this right? > but daseining, it appears to me, is the ceaseless weaving of the > fabric > of being and dis-covering where designs that i intended weave into > disclosed designs that are given to me, that sometimes close up my > intended designs. the "to me" indicates the requirement of I/Thou > for a reconcilliation of poetic archetype MS: That is a very pretty way of putting it, Henry. Michael Staples --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005