Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 23:37:57 +0100 From: Henk van Tuijl <Henk.van.Tuijl-AT-net.HCC.nl> Subject: Re: Archetypes Allen Scult wrote: > >Probably one has to be a poet, a seer, to have > >"seen" this. > > > and to have the urge to "say the seeing." "Say the seeing" or "saying what one sees, as a seer"? Self-reference - in the end? Or does Henry Sholar's poetic-essence of the existing beings say our seeing? In other words, when one thinks this through - beings and human beings participating in the DA of Dasein - there seems to be some justification for the assumption (and Rilke's _Dunesier Elegien_ seem to support this) that the "logon echon" is the prerogative of Dasein - not of human beings alone. Besides, it is Heideggerian to say "Poetically man dwells", instead of: "Poetic man dwells". Foti writes in her book on Heidegger: "Mortal _legein_ [...] is poetic in _essence_ as the donation of the traces [...] of the clear space of the opening" (12). In the light of the ruminations above one is tempted to delete the word "mortal". Allen: > Somehow I get the idea > that the way the philosopher lives in his seeing is more circumspect, > that is, his saying of his seeing as a way of getting around as a > philosopher is not quite so close to the bone of language-- more > "wiggle room." The question is if metaphysics in the Heideggerian sense play a role in the poetic-essence of DA. Or is human being able to retract himself from the clear space of the opening and hide himself in "Man" or in the metaphysics of "Man", i.e. philosophy. In his seminar on _Der Ister_ Heidegger tells the story of Hestia, the goddess of the hearth. He also tells his readers that Plato blames poets that they have made no hymns about this place in heaven. Because they are unable to uncover being (cf. hearth=ousia=Anwesen), in contrast to the true philosopher. Could it be that one stands here at the cradle of metaphysics? That the goddess of the hearth, of the farmhouse and its surrounding cultivated fields, is also the goddess of "Man" and of the philosopher as the "theologian" of secularized beings and being? Or is this unkind towards theologians? Kindest regards, Henk --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005