Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 22:51:25 +0200 From: Michael Eldred <artefact-AT-t-online.de> Subject: Re: prognosis vs. forecasting Cologne 20-Sep-2001 Rene de Bakker schrieb Thu, 20 Sep 2001 18:06:57 +0200: > >> (Going back to the 1st beginning) > >> "Wir wollen doch gerade nicht - und koennen auch nicht - die Geschichte > >> zurueckdrehen, sondern muessen aus UNSERER jetzigen und d.h. > >> KUENFTIGEN Notwendigkeit heraus denken und handeln. Denn WIR > >> - nicht der beliebige Einzelne und nicht die noch beliebigeren Vielen, > >> nicht einzelne Voelker und Nationen und Staaten fuer sich, sondern > >> das Abendland wird durch die Stoesse (Weltkrieg, Weltrevolution), > >> durch Jenes, wovon diese nur die geschichtliche Folgen sind, in die Frage > >> GESTOSSEN, ob es denn noch in der Wahrheit stehe, ja ob es die Wahrheit > >> ueberhaupt noch will und noch wollen kann." > >> > >> Compare the 'pushes' in my earlier mail. > > > >Rene, > > > >For those who don't read German (and the second German sentence is > ungrammatical, > >having two subjects, "WE" and "the occident"): > > Michael, > > Thanks for translating. > > >"To turn back history is precisely what we don't want, *and cannot want,* > > *and what we can't* (do, because it is impossible, although we can want it) > > >but rather we must think and act starting from OUR present, and that means > FUTURE, > >necessity. For WE -- and not arbitrary individuals and not the even more > >arbitrary many, not individual peoples and nations and states/countries for > >themselves, but the occident is JOLTED into the question by the jolts > (world war, > >world revolution) from that which they are only the historical > consequences of, > > jolted by the wars, by That which .... > When we are jolted by wars, then we properly are jolted by That, which had > them > as ('mere') consequences. That's why Nietzsche advised Bismarck to lay down > arms. > What would have been the consequence of that? I don't dare to think. > A new magnanimity? > > >the question whether the occident still stands in the truth and indeed, > whether > >it still wants and can still want the truth at all." > > >This passage occurs in Chapter Four "The necessity of the question > concerning the > >essence of truth from the beginnings of the history of truth", Section 27 > "The > >swinging around of critical questioning concerning truth into the > beginnings of > >the history of truth as a leaping forward into the future. _Alaetheia_ as > what > >was experienced but not questioned by the Greeks". > > > >We (the occident) can perhaps, Heidegger urges, leap forward into our > future by > >winning back not simply the truth, but by "preserving the _original > essence_ of > >truth (_alaetheia_)" (GA45:109), that which the first beginning was unable to > >hold onto. > > > >One of Heidegger's translations for _alaetheia_ is "die Lichtung" > (clearing). I > >suggest another: the diaphanous medium, i.e. the medium through (dia-) > which the > >light (_phos_) of the phenomena can pass. > > The Greeks say: the phenomena, ta onta, are true. Ta onta, ta alethea. > What you do now and below, has been done earlier on by Plato, who says: > aletheia > is idea, the appearing of WHAT ta onta ARE. (Lichtung is not an answer) > It's because we have swallowed (incorporated) Plato. We look already > at things with Plato's eyes, our minds are prefigured. One cannot fight it, > only recognize it. We are IN the (end of) metaphysics. Inmitten des Seienden. > As I said earlier: metaphysics is in the streets. Rene, I don't think that what I do with my suggested translation of _alaetheia_ as diaphanous medium or dimension is what Plato does. Why? Because Plato's idea, and even the idea of the ideas, is always a characterization of the being _of beings_ or the origin of the being _of beings_. _Alaetheia_ as diaphanous medium is the dimension through which the phenomena _can_ pass. It is _enabling_ (ermoeglichend). And phenomena cannot be restricted to the self-showing of beings, but encompass also the showing of beyng itself, including its quivering (Erzitterung), and including its self-hiding (the negation or un- of self-showing). The self-hiding of beyng itself too needs an enabling dimension: the openness of _alaetheia_ or the clearing. I recently (09-Sep-2001) cited SuZ: "What is it which has to be called a 'phenomenon' in a pronounced sense? What is according to its essence _necessarily_ the subject of an _express_ demonstration? Obviously it is something that, at first and for the most part, does _not_ show itself, which is _hidden_ but at the same time is something which belongs essentially to what shows itself at first and for the most part, and that in such a way that it constitutes its sense and ground." (SuZ:35) And Heidegger wrote in the margin of his copy of SuZ to "sense and ground": "Wahrheit des Seins", i.e. "truth of being". This shows that the truth of being itself, i.e. _alaetheia_, is the phenomenon that ultimately -- in its self-hiding -- has to be brought to light by thinking. Michael _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-_-_- artefact-AT-webcom.com _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ > > > >This light is not the physical light > >studied by physics with its wavelengths and frequencies, but the light of > being > >itself which Dasein (human being) is attuned to and can see. Dasein (human > being) > >is uniquely open to _alaetheia_, > > There is no Dasein till Heidegger. The Greeks didn't need it, because they > had aletheia, > better: because aletheia had them. They, 'naturally', had only to look. And > their > looking, idein, noein, belonged itself to aletheia. We cannot think this, > because > we take everything that happens 'in' us as subjective. But we can/must > force ourselves > to think, that this subjectivity is a consequence of aletheia, insofar > every tending > from this inside to an outside presupposes it.* This would be the position of > the "critical reflexion" at the very beginning of GA45, which is only the > starting-up > of the preparation of the Grundstimmung, in which can be experienced the > need (Not), > which solely can bestow necessity (Not-wendigkeit: shifting the need) to > our questioning, > which then has to back to the first beginning, in order to see why the > Greeks identified > on and alethes and somehow didn't think aletheia itself. > > *because it leads to worldwars, say Nietzsche and Heidegger. > > I'll try to do better than this. Thanks for the stimulation. > > regards, > > Rene > > --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005