Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:43:48 -0800 (PST)
From: callihan-AT-callihan.seanet.com (Steven E. Callihan)
Subject: Re: Archetypes


Henry Sholar wrote:

>Steve,  usually we get to something like this point in the conversation,
>and you find some sort of succor in the illogicality (limits) of logic.
>
>this i take to be the always-present-negativity, the "reification of the
>shadow," and, especially, "the naming of the unnamed thing."
>
>but the latter is exactly the seeing of the seeer and the poetic
>thinking beyond the fear and frustration of the limits of logic.
>and the careful listening hears the name of the unnamed.
>
>with regard to the "black hole at the center of every galaxy of
>thought" let me say this (ie, pregnant pause for a more serious
>comment):  that particular characteristic of galaxies, be they matter
>or thought, is simply the current historical notion, and that notion
>the current gift of being of *this* historical epoch.  down the path a bit,
>say on Dante Blvd, we can find other centers of thought that were revealed
>by other gifts of being in other temporal epochs. 
>
>that we have come in to the disclosure of black holes through
> a long destruction and forgetful is directly related to the limits of our
>seeing and hearing the name(s) of the unnamed...
>
>such is the news from this black hole of heideggerianism...

The "black hole," as my "shadow," and your "background," indeed, are but
metaphors, Henry. What I referred to as a "shadow" and as, not inaptly I
think, a "black hole" is something that can only be seen or known (very
loosely speaking here) in the form of the incompleteness and lack of
finality (temporality) of what can be seen or known. A black hole can only
be known by its absence. It cannot be seen or known in its own right. The
same, to some degree, holds true for the "unnamed thing," or at least we
cannot tell each other of any thing that does not share a common name. It
cannot become, except indirectly, part of a common discourse. I grant,
however, that one can point out a something without a name, but what has
been pointed out cannot be discussed without a resort to naming. As I said,
the thing resides behind the name like a shadow, for it is an instantial,
but not a persistant, presence. Indeed, one cannot tell of a single unnamed
thing without resorting to naming it ("Being" being perhaps the grandest
instance of this). The problematic is that of discourse, itself. I don't
believe it can be simply dismissed with a wave of the hand...

Best,

Steve


----------------------------------------------------------------------
=A6 Steven E. Callihan            =A6        "The more mistrust,         =A6
=A6                               =A6        the more philosophy."       =A6
=A6 URL: http://www.callihan.com/ =A6                                    =A6
=A6 E-Mail: callihan-AT-callihan.com =A6-F. Nietzsche, The Gay Science, 346.=A6
----------------------------------------------------------------------



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