From: "Michael Staples" <michael-AT-intersubjectivestudies.com> Subject: Re: Zollikon: Unconscious Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 06:44:24 -0800 Thank you Michael, I'll be chewing on this for a while. Another question: What does it mean for time to be "outside" itself? I'm having trouble grasping this. Don't quite get how something can be outside itself. Michael S. ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Eldred <artefact-AT-t-online.de> To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 11:18 AM Subject: Re: Zollikon: Unconscious > Cologne 18-Dec-2001 > > Michael Staples schrieb Tue, 18 Dec 2001 06:22:30 -0800: > > > Michael, is there a central point from which all of the metaphysical > > mistakes concerning subject/object, time v. temporality, the forgetting of > > Being and so on flow? Would this point be, for instance, the ontological > > difference? And if so, then how does the creations of a theoretical world > > (e.g., Platonic forms, subject v. object) follow from this? > > Michael, > For my way of thinking (following Heidegger), the crucial, pivotal point is the > insight into the open dimension of the disclosive truth of being. The > ontological difference belongs to this dimension, but focuses on the difference > between being and beings and not the open dimension of being itself. > > To risk an illustrative analogy: > Just as water is the element in which fish live, > The dimension of disclosive truth is the element of human being. > > This dimension, which has to be seen also in its temporality, is taken for > granted by all kinds of metaphysical thinking. And yet it also has to be > implicitly presupposed by all kinds of metaphysical thinking, from Plato on, as > its element, its encrypted elixir. The step back from metaphysical thinking > consists in not taking the granting of the open dimension for granted, but > rather in thinking on it. All metaphysical thinking is concerned only with the > being of beings, whether implicitly or explicitly, and pays no heed to the play > of truth itself. The unseen open dimension of truth holds sway only for the sake > of beings in their being for all kinds of metaphysical thinking. > > The double-edged predicament/blessing of being human is to be exposed to the > open dimension of being's truth, exposed to the play and interplay of disclosure > and closure of beings in their self-showing. This exposure can be regarded > either as a gratuitous gift or as a curse. In any case, this exposure says where > we belong as human _beings_. It says whither we are enpropriated. > > The open dimension of being's truth has the Greek name _alaetheia_. This > diaphanous dimension is the element of human being. 'Diaphanous' here does not > signify any physical property of the kind 'allowing light to pass through', but > rather the dimension which the phenomena 'measure through' (dia-mension). > > The phenomena are that which show themselves. This self-showing includes also > their self-hiding, i.e. the truth is hardly ever plain to see. This is the > kernel of the strife among human beings. On top of this (or behind this) there > is the self-hiding of being itself, which hides itself in granting beings. > > But there is yet another aspect of phenomena which Heidegger in all his writings > did not have in view AT ALL (and of course nobody else either, least of all the > epigones, who will never risk opening their eyes to think independently). > Heidegger focuses on the _apophansis_ of beings in their being, that is, their > self-showing. But _apophansis_ can and must be understood not only as > self-showing, but also as showing off. That is, beings show themselves off as > what they are in the open dimension of being's truth. One could say that this is > the showing-off of beings in the third person. (This is a key to thinking beings > in the valuableness, their worth.) > > But there is also the showing-off of beings in the first person for the second > person, that is to say, human beings too show off in the openness of being's > truth for each other. In fact, human beings _are_ such only in their showing > off. In my view and to my mind, the insight into the showing-off of human beings > is the phenomenological key to thinking through human interplay or togetherness, > i.e. Mitsein or 'intersubjectivity' in multiple scare quotes. Phenomena such as > vanity/modesty, flattery, persuasion, social standing/falling, depression, etc. > have to be rethought in the light of this insight into showing-off in the > dimension of _alaetheia_. > > Human being is not only marked by exposure to the play of truth and untruth, but > also the interplay of human beings is beset by their necessary, compulsive > showing-off in the striving to stand and _be_ somebody. > > Nobody wants to see the phenomenon of being somewho, for it is an assault on the > vanity of being somebody. And yet, it is wise to recall the 53rd. fragment of > Herakleitos: _polemos panton men pataer_, "Strife/war/polemic is the father of > all..." Strife here is the struggle to allow a phenomenon to show itself, for it > to be seen. To see a phenomenon means to see it in its being. This requires > learning to think, which is much different from trusting in an authority such as > Heidegger or anyone else, following faithfully in their footsteps. > > Michael > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ > http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-_-_- artefact-AT-webcom.com > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_- > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ > > > > > Michael S. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > > [mailto:owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of Michael > > Eldred > > Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 1:56 AM > > To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > > Subject: Re: Zollikon: Unconscious > > > > Cologne 15-Dec-2001 > > > > Michael Staples schrieb Fri, 14 Dec 2001 06:24:38 -0800: > > > > > Thanks for the response, Michael. Yes, I am familiar with Fritz Pearls and > > > the Gestalt movement. What you are saying is so much more enlightening > > that > > > Fritz Pearls (perhaps because it is gluing together pieces of my > > > understanding that, when they come together, turn on all kinds of light > > > bulbs for me). Gestalt has always been rather dissapointing for me because > > > of their incessant struggle to be a "legitimate" science. Their contains > > and > > > endless search for proving, and perception, and scientific jargon. It > > seems > > > to me that the movement started off on the right foot with Pearls, but > > > somehow took a bad turn. I'm more interested in the intersubjective > > > implications of Martin Buber, but I can't handle his theorizing. > > > > > > I find that many people have a kind of kernal I resonate with. Mostly, I > > get > > > impressed with how they work...what they actually do. But then I generally > > > find that how they think about what they do is dissapointing. Buber, for > > > instance, like Carl Rogers, has this grand openness to others that is very > > > impressive...only to be trounced by his thinking about third-things and > > > Betweens. The metaphysics is dissapointing. Jung has some very interesting > > > stuff...only to get lost in Kantian metaphysics. James Hillman seems at > > > times to be struggling with many of the very same issues I struggle > > > with...only to get absolutely crazy with his thinking about the issues. > > And > > > the phenomenologists are either swimming in a pool of Husserlian soup, or > > > followers of Medard Boss, who is one of my bigger dissapointments. > > > > > > What interests me about Heidegger is that he provides a way of thinking > > > about something I already have an attunement to. No one else seems to do > > > this. But I wonder when I read your material, how much one can attribute > > to > > > Heidegger, and how much one really needs to attribute to you personally. > > > Seems to me that you take the basic position of H. into a light that is > > > certainly consistent with his position, but is also more. > > > > Michael, > > The reason I mentioned Fritz Perls (he was born in Berlin, if I recall > > rightly?), was the book of his I read some decades ago: "In and Out the > > Garbage > > Pail" (I seem to have lost it along the way). At the time I found it > > delightful. > > Two lines of the Gestalt Prayer have hung in my memory (the last lines? > > probably > > misquoted): > > "And if we chance to meet, it's beautiful, > > If not, it can't be helped." > > > > A bitter-sweet truth. > > > > Yes, Fritz Perls and Carl Rogers seem to have been very impressive, > > charismatic > > men. Ludwig Binswanger, too, although not much of a philosopher. I've > > mentioned > > Boss' book on dreams to you before. The German title is "Es traeumte mir > > vergangene Nacht". I found it very englightening. Medard Boss was a very > > charming man. Rabidly anti-communist though, I suppose similar to Heidegger. > > > > What I've been writing these last weeks is my interpretation of Heidegger > > (especially _Being and Time_, but not restricted to this basic text), in the > > light of the phenomena as I see them. As I keep emphasizing in this forum, > > it's > > the phenomena themselves that have the last say, not Heidegger. He can only > > be a > > guide to learning to see differently in a fundamental way outside the > > natural > > Western baggage of metaphysical thinking. > > > > I haven't been reading Heidegger lately because it was boring me. Every now > > and > > then a bit of distance is more fruitful than close study that risks becoming > > short-sighted and losing itself in mere scholarship. Some distance frees the > > translation up for a lighter tonal key and flushes the gaze for fresher > > viewing > > of phenomena that Heidegger ignored. > > > > > > > > > > > --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005