File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2001/heidegger.0106, message 2


Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:03:37 -0700
From: Kenneth Johnson <poochiegraig-AT-home.com>
Subject: Re: Bodenstaendigkeit, autochthony


Michael Eldred schrieb:

>Kenneth,

>You can take a sneak preview of the paper I presented to the UNT
>Heidegger2001 Symposium at
>http://www.webcom.com/artefact/cstgenpr.html (sorry, no audio). It was
>an extremely lively and envigorating meeting (perhaps even
>enpropriating?).


Hey hello Herr Michael, thanks I will and thanks for the report. The last
couple weeks I've wondered where our two good doctor Eld's were jetting
around at these days. I thot perhaps you'd decided to stay awhile over here
in the land of Sam for other work n wreckreations and the last I heard of
Stuart's whereabouts he was also existing somewheres about the New World
over on the High Humidity Coast.


You also schrieb:

>A Volk cannot be (unmediatedly) the addressee of a thinking. Just as the
>mathematico-scientific
>casting of the world initiated by Descartes, Leibniz and others was the
>response to a sending and
>has become a planetary destiny, engulfing other traditions and other
>historical ways of life, so too
>is the leap from metaphysical world-castings today situated necessarily
>only in a planetary
>context. We live today in a digital-mathematical world without very many
>people at all having the
>least notion of mathematics. In fact, most people have inordinate
>difficulty in thinking
>mathematically -- an astounding fact! Descartes, Leibniz et al eagerly
>responded to the sending of
>being in casting _all_ realms of beings mathematically. Today, this
>mathematical casting has
>taken a digital twist, and is just as totalizing. So too, the thinking
>of being and enpropriation could
>one day become a 'self-evidence' (just like the notions of us having
>'ideas' in our 'heads' are
>today, or our 'being' being determined by a digital genetic code)
>without anybody having even
>heard the name 'Heidegger'.

the "idea" of having "ideas", hmmm, nice imaging! -anyway you know my
limitations here, I always risk myself inside partial or total
misunderstandings of 'the way' of the thinking here so I'm always
'condemned' to a surface view wherever Heidegger is concerned. A not too
bad a place tho, since the surface is where appearance can be seen as "pure
appearance" (and nothing besides), as the place of a pure manifestation of
a non-linguistic conceptuality (or, more correctly, a non-linguistic
concieviality) (or, more cryptically, a place where codalisticity and
timeicity divergently merge to assume the artificial camerical form of a
cinimaeically present-ing photovoltaically generated-timewave driven
phonemial graphiisticality of an inelastic (frozen) digitalisticity as it
presents itself autonomaically at x frames per x time).

Or perhaps this to ask, what does it mean to "think" mathematically as
opposed to thinking calculatively? All symbols, phoneme-nal or matheme-nal,
are, it seems to me, are nothing more than mimetic promptings that holdover
in extension a particular memory busily engaged in some "pointings toward",
all this in order to stretch out its mental continuity far beyond what
would be possible without these prompts.

Or I guess what I'm wondering Michael is whether the core part of the
notion of digital being (which you refer to as historically exhibiting a
totalizing "nature") is at bottom untenable. I mean that the digital is
surely a grand machine for looking at existence as it flows along on the
level of a macro-scopic viewing, but at a much higher resolutioned
micro-scopic level it would necessarily have to be viewed as analogic, i.e.
without the ruptures which a digital casting would impose, else we should
have long ago become iced up inside the first isolate interstice between
some unwavering 1 and its likewise discretely frozen discontinently
adjacent 0 (to become no more than "sweet dreams and flying machines in
pieces on the ground" - Sweet Baby James).

And besides, the genetic code as it actually exists 'in-itself' is nothing
digital, no numbers in there nor word signs, of which both are no more than
artificial impositions used only for calculating coordinates of extension
between the various analogic behaviors of its acids as they produce its
differences, and all entirely environ.mentally driven.

For us everything is always and necessarily viewed interpretivly, as
necessarily perspectival, and only indiscretely conceptual and whatever is
otherwise left over from this state is - - well, in Kate's words, "and
where this wind is blowin' to, there ain't no way of knowin" (especially
not digitally, except of course for EMoore here, who, with (the "jealous")
god on his side, views digits from an otherwise more 'semen.al' perspective
and which is certainly his god given rite to do).


>Propriation says simply that being and human being belong together.
>There is a simplicity of
>saying here. Being has to make do with humans to open itself as the
>truth or Da of being. And
>humans have to put up with being human beings, exposed to the truth of
>being, and that
>predominantly in the mode of un-truth (i.e. as partial truth,
>distortion, concealment, human lies and
>deception, etc.). Making do and putting up with characterize propriation
>in its finiteness.

This has the elegant ring of beauty to it, like a phrase out of Conrad, and
so is undoubted.ly true - -

This kind of '"simplicity of saying" is sort of like a semaphoric language
where the truth/untruth dyad changes nature according to the sharpness
quotient of a distant viewing, and again depending whether these dyads are
employed at the micro or the macro and whether truth is (oxymoronically /
chameleonically) cast simultaneously as an analogically presented digital
phenomenon. I mean, at the digital level of a viewing of symbolic
language's 'parts' we are quite easily separated out as discrete
propositions, but certainly not as discrete actualities.

Nice to hear your voice again,
kenneth

>
>Michael
>_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-  artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-_-_- artefact-AT-webcom.com
>_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-
>_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005