Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 18:06:16 +0200
From: Rene de Bakker <rbakker-AT-bs18.bs.uva.nl>
Subject: RE: titles and lethe


GA45, p. 134:

Wir Heutigen stehen - meist ohne davon zu wissen - viel mehr, ja fast
ausschliesslich erst im Dunstkreis dieses auslaufenden Endes des
abendlaendischen
Denkens und noch nicht im Bannkreis des Endes im ersten Sinne.
Denn wenn es dahin kaeme, rueckten wir sogleich in den Uebergang; 
ich sehe aber im Bereich des Denkens, sofern davon zu sprechen ist,
nirgends ein Zeichen, dass ein Schritt auf dem grossen Bogen der Bruecke
in die Zukunft denkerisch vollzogen, ja auch nur gewollt waere.

> From the Rojcewicz / Schuwer translation (Indiana University Press, 1994):

>"We of today stand -- for the most part unwittingly -- to a great extent, 
>indeed almost exclusively, in the twilight of this expiring end of Western 
>thinking but not yet in the orbit of the end in the first sense. For if it 
>came to that, we would immediately proceed to a transition; but nowhere do 
>I see in the domain of thinking, insofar as we can speak of it, a sign that 
>a step has been taken on the great span of the bridge into the future, or 
>indeed that such a step is even wanted."
>indeed that such a step is even wanted."

   
 >I hope this is what you were looking for.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Bill Devlin

Thanks very much, Bill. With a little cooperation, there's a chance of
getting somewhere.
Although it proved to be better than expected/feared, in comparison to 
e.g. a fatal translation by Krell, there is still enough that disappears
under the table.
Whether Heidegger will be a second Aristoteles Latinus, remains to be seen. 

Let's put my less correct but I think truer translation besides it:

We of the present-day are, without knowing mostly, standing a good deal
more, yes almost exclusively only in the mist-circle of the expiring end of
occidental thinking and not yet in the spell-circle of [another end, that
is: Vollendung,
completion].  Would that come to be, we would immediately move over to the
transit; 
but I see, in the realm of thinking, insofar one can speak of it, nowhere a
sign, that
one stride on the great bow of the bridge into the future would be performed 
by a thinking thinker, yes even would be wanted [desired].

1.  twilight - orbit       vs.    2. mist-circle -  spell-circle      

1 sounds better, but  leaves no room for meditating the correlation of two
circles,
(Kreise) which is far more important. Either we circle in the mist- or
dust-circle of an end,
that is merely expiring, or we circle in the Bannkreis, we are spelled by
'something', like
a moth around a flame. We would be concentrated, not by our own will,
although the 
first stride into the "future" would have to be wanted (willed?). This
would be in accordance with
Gelassenheit, which as not-willing must at first be willed. (see the
conversation Gelassenheit).
As can be seen on p. 133, this first step must proceed from NIETZSCHE, who
is the end of
western philosophy in the essential sense.

But the concentration is still not there, so that we stay in the
dust-circle of the remnants
of historical concepts and 'systems', and which end will have its own
duration, and possibly
will continue when another beginning has been long gone. (133/34)

We stay in this dust-circle "almost exclusively"

2.  proceed to a transition     vs.     move over to the transit

A transition. Why? It's clearly THE transition.

Both versions are missing the German "ruecken", in which is "Ruck", hitch,
push.  
(compare German p. 123: "Stoesse, Spruenge und Stuerze". The other beginning
will not be a repetition of the first, but we'll have to be collected (!)
with regard to
pushes, jumps and downfalls.)

3. "denkerisch": in (1) under the table; in (2) circumscribed: it is an
adjective to
Denker, thinker, like "dichterisch" to Dichter, poet.  It connotes the own
sphere of
thinking (over against the "realm" of thinking, which, sorry, doesn't exist)

4. In (1) the oblique speech (would be performed) is suppressed. See
"Gelassenheit"
near the end, where Heidegger notices that at a certain point speech became
oblique 
Heidegger doesn't make assertions, notice the frequent "gesetzt, dass ...",
supposed, that ...

I have to go now. To say one more thing on "reading": it is that, which one
isn't
capable of anymore, and which has to be learned again, for its own sake.
Reading is Sammlung, concentration, collection. It is what a text can never
give you,
but what you have to do yourself.

nice weekend to you all,

Rene






  







 


   
 









                       

-----------------------------------
drs. René de Bakker
Universiteitsbibliotheek Amsterdam
Afdeling Catalogisering 
tel. 020-5252368              


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