Date:          Thu, 14 May 1998 11:58:00 EST
Subject:       Re: Language?



>>i think the first thing that fundamentalists do is demonize the other--
>>that which is not according to their fundamentalist tenet.  then,
>>whether it is music, books, or other cultural practices, they find 
>>out what they can to argue the thing as evil.  in many ways org'd
>>christianity was founded on this process of demonization.
>>check out elaine pagels' _the origin of satan_.  it coherently
>>describes the christian message as one of both love... & hate.
>
>
>could it be that our metaphically given "minds" similarly demonize that
>which is.  "what's so" shouldn't be....and let me tell you _why_....
>


i have no idea what you are trying to say.
certainly everyone has love and hate and alot 
of indifference in them and we all project it out.
b&t certainly elaborates on that.
 my point is that fundamentalists
deliberately absolutize an ethos and
go after people who do not comply.



>>plato would have poetry banned from the republic.  he, too, wasn't into
>>this "getting carried away" crap.
>
>
>crap.  indeed.

well, maybe to you and plato. i like getting carried away
on certain occasions.  as does heidegger.  we romantics!!!
cuts stress, provides insight, etc.
(you frequently miss my well-honed irony.)



>>heidegger, i think, probably had a pedantic quality about his
>>appreciation of poetry and art, tho not as crude as fundamentalists
>>i'm sure.  but i think his point is that the "truth" comes from a
>>vast infinite (as far as we can tell) source of continuous uncovering
>>and opening up and gathering into the open and etc.  such a move just
>>naturally seems to make langauge flow from poetry and not vice versa.
>
>
>but from the view of my assertion that language is that which grants being
>(vice language as the spoken/written word) it would seem (to me) that
>language is most originary in terms of being.  the big-bang if you will.

only if language surpasses any calculability:  any definition.
my phrase, language comes from poetry, implies that.
other wise you worry with correspondence theories and worse.


>>whereas we with our tinier and tinier tunnel-techno vision keep thinking
>>that the further we strip away, quantify and calculate, the closer to the
>>truth we get.  because, lets face it, we do think of language as
>asystematic >symbology of signs.  and computers can "think."
>>

>
>we as "what" or we as "why" think that?

is there some really important distinction you're implying here?


>can computers and their binary language uncover a new dimension of
>relatedness?  like a possibility?

no

>BTW..Henk writes:
>[...] fireplace is the centre of the house on the Olympos, and in the same
>way Being is the centre of being(s). The house of Being is language.
>Therein man dwells (alone, since the gods have left him). As a thinker and
>one who creates with words, man is the guardian of the house. 
>
>
>so then.  could it be possible "to realize" that Being is indeed at the
>center of our being.  once we come to a completion of metaphysics as the
>ground that gives us.
>

once one realizes the above, then what?
besides that, what does it mean that "being is the 
center of our being"?  it sounds like a bumper sticker.

 i'm not sure what you agree to and what
you find in need of criticism. 

kindest regards,
henry



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