File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2001/heidegger.0107, message 9

Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 12:02:04 -0600
Subject: Re: misunderstanding the statement


<This Dasein within ourselves can only be reached for in 
fundamental mood, 
Grund-Stimmung. And even Heidegger (or Moses) cannot 
wake you up, 
if you don't yourself. Normally, and I'm speaking only of 
myself, one 
<doesn't want to wake up at all, or only 'as if'. 


I think I know well this desire only to wake up ^—as if..^“ 
is desire that sets conditons on its own fulfillment, so as 
not to be brought to a state of mind beyond one^“s control.  
Thus one keeps one^“s moods grounded in the familiar, 
more or less conventionally defined possibilities of "as
It^“s always been about "virtual reality," even before 
computer games.  Computer games just simulate "more 
easily" for our children what we deluded ourselves into 
thinking we actually created anew, even found^◊discovered 
under our own power, as a result of our own effort and 
sweat.  And so somehow our reality is more "there."  
Perhaps it is.  But I couldn^“t convince my son of that.   
so we^“re all still left with how we choose to value  our 
respective "as if^“s." 

Now, if I^“ve followed you thusfar, could you tell me more 
about this realm of " as if"?  I almost remember the name 
of the philosopher of the "as if" whom Wittgenstein likes so
much.  At any rate, do you mean for it to mean the same as 
the "apophantical as" of assertion?  I think there might be 
the suggestiion of a subtle difference here, but I can^“t
figure it.

But of course, both "as^“s" leave the Grund-Stimmung 
relatively untouched.  But it is also the case, if we may
put it 
this way, that the Grund-Stimmung itself is untouchable, or 
at least refuses touch.  But yet we approach it, try to woo
with words, to open itself to what we know as 
experience^◊that is what we already know as 
experience^◊what is familiar to us, in words already 
shared, or at least shareable.

<1. GA 29/30: back into the hidden ground of Dasein letting become awake 
the tiefe Langeweile. 

2. Ground brings the totality of what is, into play: das 
Seiende im Ganzen. 
Not this boring book here, or that missed train, although it
is necessary 
to see what precisely happens with these, they too are far 
from normal. 

Momentarily I'm struggling with this: mood and totality, 
trying to think 
the "im Ganzen". 
It seems something that strictly can't be done. Not, that
could not 
write books 
<about it, but the experience seems not doable. But it must.

Doesn^“t the seeming impossibility of the experience  
preserve it ("hold in safekeeping," as Heidegger says) as 
what it is, while at the same time making possible the 
writing of books and other words of "Aussage"  on the way 
to becoming "Dichtung"?

We^“ve spoken here before of Schlegel^“s fragments as an 
attempt to line up the organicity of the "im Ganzan" with
pars por todo capability of the 
fragment-which-indicates^◊perhaps what Heidegger calls 
the formal indication--those individual words, the simplest 
words, put together in delicately shaped combinations 
which hint at the already interpreted linkags between 
seeing and saying.  

Are the words you brought at the end of your post direct 
from Juenger?  What^“s the title of Wisser^“s book?  Seems 
like wonderful "as if^“s"!


> -----------------------------------
> drs. Ren de Bakker
> Universiteitsbibliotheek Amsterdam
> Afdeling Catalogisering 
> tel. 020-5252368              
>      --- from list
> ---

     --- from list ---


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005