File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2001/heidegger.0112, message 91


Subject: RE: Barthelme
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:52:43 +0100


As far as I can infer from his work, Heidegger was on the side of
meaning and meaningfulness. He indulged in no rational aporia, trying to
speak clearly, at object. Being and Time has an analysis of Dasein's
characteristics: speaking too much, curious, equivocating, taken over,
and projecting.

The absurdities of modern art come from the above characteristics. This
explains Heidegger's low opinion on such forms of art. When the wish to
have a status and impress others is allowed to manifest in artists
without art, absurd art is born.

The absurd is the lack of meaning. While life may still look absurd to
some, the philosophic consciousness searches for meaning, although it
knows very well it cannot reach it. Philosophers, when they deserve this
name, always tried to convey the hidden meaning through their work,
while allowing the full freedom of choice for their readers.

"Here the only helpful is symbol, which according to its nature of
paradox, represents the tertium that does not exist - according to the
sentence of logics -, being instead the living truth. That's why we can
never hold neither PARACELSUS, nor the alchemists for the fact they used
their secret language: a deeper understanding of the soul becoming
problematic teaches us quickly that it is far better to reserve your
judgment than to hurry to proclaim urbi et orbi the signification of
things. Is true, however, that exists a understandable desire for a
non-duplicity clarity; but we forget that soul things are life
processes, i.e. transformations, that never have to be univocally
determined if we do not want to transform what is living and moving in
something static. The undefined conceived mithologem and the shining
symbol express better, more perfect and, thus, infinite times clearer
the soul process that the clearest notion; because symbol does not
mediate only a conception on the procedure, but also - what is maybe of
the same importance - an experience or an empathic re-living the
procedure, whose clear-obscure can only be comprehended by an
inoffensive empathic feeling and no way by the brutal intervention of
clarity." (C.G. JUNG in Paracelsus as a Spiritual Phenomenon)


To be is to become, to become is to exist.

Jethro, Priest of On

 

Intellect Club mailgroup at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Intellect_Club


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu [mailto:owner-
> heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu] On Behalf Of edwin ruda
> Sent: woensdag 19 december 2001 19:06
> To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Subject: Barthelme
> 
> I am reminded continually of the poet Donald Barthelmes
> wonderful line from his short story A Shower of Gold:
> You may not be interested in absurdity, but absurdity
> is interested in you.
> Just wondering: Is there a place in Heidegger for the absurd
> happening?
> 
> Zanily yours,
> Ed
> 
> 
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005