File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2001/heidegger.0106, message 8


Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 12:50:49 +0200
From: artefact-AT-t-online.de (Michael Eldred)
Subject: Re: Bodenstaendigkeit, autochthony


Cologne 03-Jun-2001

Kenneth Johnson schrieb  Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:03:37 -0700:

> 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.

Hi Kenneth,
Nice to hear from you again in response to my epistle from Germany.
Jetting is a real drag, arriving is better and talking to some kindred
questioners near-bliss. It would seem however that philosophy is primarily the
realm of Epicurian _lathe biosas_, the quiet Platonic "dialogue of the soul
with itself" or the Heideggerian "existing in namelessness" (Humanismus-Brief).

> You also schrieb:
>
> > 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).

This imagined place of "pure manifestation", "non-linguistic" -- and the
imagining already ensnared in language.

> 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).

"At bottom untenable" -- yes. And the bottom only becomes tenable, i.e. we only
get a hold on it, through some casting or other that gathers and draws (in the
double sense) the 'bottom' in/into defining outlines. Just such an outlining is
the digital casting of being in which the oneness of beings (_to hen_) has
achieved its ultimate mathematical interpretation in number (_arithmoi_).

> 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.

"The genetic code as it actually exists 'in-itself' " -- the genetic code does
not actually exist 'in-itself'. Nothing 'exists' prior to drawing and
gathering. Nothingness quivers mysteriously, perhaps not even a silent humming.

> 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).

"For us everything is always and necessarily viewed interpretively" -- couldn't
agree more.

> >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
>

Cheers,
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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005