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 ---