Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:48:26 -0600 From: allen scult <allen.scult-AT-drake.edu> Subject: Re: Plato:Heidegger:the metaphor of light --Boundary_(ID_Nbk6dBVAVPgbZ6tfZoY2yg) At 7:45 PM +0000 2/27/02, Michael Pennamacoor wrote: >Allen just now: > >>if Heidegger did "collapse suns" into the same light, it's because that's >>the way it is for us in Legein which when it shines on Sein is the >>only light we can see: >> >>" Sometimes the light is shinin' on me. . . >>Other times I can barely see. . ." > >Ok, but I am concerned that this collapsing of the two suns, of >physis, logos and genesis, implies that the emergence and >submergence of things (physis) and their being pointed out/displayed >(logos) are one and the same. This might be an equating of dasein >and sein, and, I cannot accept this. I think it necessary to found a >difference between physis (the coming to pass of things), logos (the >pointing out of things as the things that they are) and techne (the >lending of a hand to things that they might be fashioned as such and >such). The monistic collapsing (co-lapse-ing) of these seems to lead >to a massive nihilism or a silent non-differentiation between >showing and hiding, a Parmenidean perfect sphere of being (and >nothing besides) that is indistinguishable from its absence... A >decision to only look at the light itself rather than that which the >light enlightens, or to identify the light with the enlightened >seems to beg the blindness that Plato warned against: that of a >passive acceptance of facticity, a submission to fate (history)... >is this why modernity seems to lead to a hopeless hope in the future >as being more valuable than the past and the present as the presence >of a non-basis for supporting the upcoming (but never present, >always already deferred) hoped-for future? I.e., Marx (communist >mankind), Nietzsche (the reign of the ubermensch), Heidegger >(gelassenheit)... and all of these in different ways are fired by a >notion of the radically historical essence of being (mode of >production, will-to-power, ontological difference, resp.). But such >being seems to be both collapsing and differentiating at the same >time and in the same way and one can make no distinction between it >and the saying of it, between its coming and going, etc. This >worries me as much as it excites: somehow a single 'process' seems >right, but it equally seems to demand another, an other, missing >from these thinkings. > >"... you say hello, and I say goodbye, hello hello, I don't know why >you say hello I say goodbye...." [Beatles, 'Hello Goodbye'] > >bye > >michaelP I say hello, I think the metaphorical capacity of philosophical legein to successively bring earth and world closer and closer together(so to speak) without collapsing them is an important element in the wonder of it all. What Heidegger does not only with Lichtung, but with scheinen and erscheinen and then with zeigen and erzeigen I think moves Plato closer. All we have, really, to get closer to the things themselves is the capacity for developing more far-reaching metaphors out of already existing metaphors circling back to the metaphoricity of the things themselves, but always with caring attention to the rift between earth and world.( Sorry about that sentence.) This is the way of the formale Anzeige as I understand it, and to me,this provides a way to understand Heidegger's relationship to Plato ( and everyone else whose indications he builds on) Even the term formale Anzeige itself grows out of Husserl's use of the term. But as I understand it, Husserl's Anzeige didn't have the relational dynamic, the movement-toward, built into it from the very start,whereas Heidegger's formale Anzeige itself initiates movement, places us in an appropriate ( appropriates us into) an orientation toward. This orientation-toward flows into the way of access given by the things themselves. Thus as Michael suggests ( though his metaphorizing is not as wordly as mine),The Lichtung des Seins lights from both sides within the chiascuro outline provided by the contrast. Metaphorically yours,( or actually Being's to be more exact.) Allen -- Allen Scult Dept. of Philosophy HOMEPAGE: " Heidegger on Rhetoric and Hermeneutics": Drake University http://www.multimedia2.drake.edu/s/scult/scult.html Des Moines, Iowa 50311 PHONE: 515 271 2869 FAX: 515 271 3826 --Boundary_(ID_Nbk6dBVAVPgbZ6tfZoY2yg)
HTML VERSION:
Allen just now:
>if Heidegger did "collapse suns" into the same light, it's because that's
>the way it is for us in Legein which when it shines on Sein is the only light we can see:
>
>" Sometimes the light is shinin' on me. . .
>Other times I can barely see. . ."
Ok, but I am concerned that this collapsing of the two suns, of physis, logos and genesis, implies that the emergence and submergence of things (physis) and their being pointed out/displayed (logos) are one and the same. This might be an equating of dasein and sein, and, I cannot accept this. I think it necessary to found a difference between physis (the coming to pass of things), logos (the pointing out of things as the things that they are) and techne (the lending of a hand to things that they might be fashioned as such and such). The monistic collapsing (co-lapse-ing) of these seems to lead to a massive nihilism or a silent non-differentiation between showing and hiding, a Parmenidean perfect sphere of being (and nothing besides) that is indistinguishable from its absence... A decision to only look at the light itself rather than that which the light enlightens, or to identify the light with the enlightened seems to beg the blindness that Plato warned against: that of a passive acceptance of facticity, a submission to fate (history)... is this why modernity seems to lead to a hopeless hope in the future as being more valuable than the past and the present as the presence of a non-basis for supporting the upcoming (but never present, always already deferred) hoped-for future? I.e., Marx (communist mankind), Nietzsche (the reign of the ubermensch), Heidegger (gelassenheit)... and all of these in different ways are fired by a notion of the radically historical essence of being (mode of production, will-to-power, ontological difference, resp.). But such being seems to be both collapsing and differentiating at the same time and in the same way and one can make no distinction between it and the saying of it, between its coming and going, etc. This worries me as much as it excites: somehow a single 'process' seems right, but it equally seems to demand another, an other, missing from these thinkings.
"... you say hello, and I say goodbye, hello hello, I don't know why you say hello I say goodbye...." [Beatles, 'Hello Goodbye']
bye
michaelP
--