File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_1998/heidegger.9805, message 179


Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 18:03:33 +0200
Subject: Re: Self-evidently so ...


Cologne, 25 May 1998

Laurence Paul Hemming commented:
> On waking, I find two posts this morning make a similar suggestion:
>
> >George Steiner makes several references to Heidegger's work; "Replace
> >Sein by 'God' in all the key passages and their meaning becomes
> >pellucid."
>
> >Reading "The Origin of the Work of Art" by replacing the notion of "Art
> >Work" with the notion of "Psychotherapeutic Work" is pretty interesting
>
> Of course it's more simple than that.  I have long known that if I replace
> all occurrences of the term "Dasein" in the Gesamtausgabe with "my
> Grandmother", it's clear that Heidegger was actually talking about my
> Grandmother.  I wish she'd mentioned it.  I wonder I never saw it before.
>
> Or just perhaps "God", "Psychotherapeutic Work" and "my Grandmother" do not
> always name self-evidences (maybe Heidegger even knew this himself?)?  Might
> Heidegger himself have thought that being and God were not the same?  Did
> no-one ever bother to ask him whether he thought they were - was it so
> self-evident what the answer was (actually, yes they did ... GA15 p. 436)?
> Now what do I do?

Laurence, what is to be done with such pellucidity? As Steiner says, it comes 
from mapping the thinking of being back into two-thousand-year-old ruts in 
thinking. We in the Western metaphysical tradition understand the _summum ens_ 
all too well. How to get out of our rut? As Rafael Capurro points out, only a 
leap (der Satz vom Grund) will do it. We need other ears for what is 
unheard-of. 

Later in life, Heidegger remarked that he was asked about once a fortnight 
whether by Sein he meant God.

There is solace in the well-worn and in familiar routine. How often is it 
noticed that routine and the familiar also immew and immure?

Metaphysically, being has been thought as the beingness of beings. This leaves 
room for being to be understood as a being, namely, the supreme being, which is 
the ground of everything that is. 

	Now,
	If we wanted to leap from 
	The ground of everything,
	Where on Earth would we be?

Michael
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-  artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ artefact-AT-t-online.de-_-_ 
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-








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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005