Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 12:08:47 -0600 From: allen scult <allen.scult-AT-drake.edu> Subject: Re: Martin Heidegger the intellectual mentor of the left --Boundary_(ID_AJHx/gVU82+KKgQ76MvsbQ) >Allen, just now: > >Michael, > >For whatever reason, some of us insist on trying to do something >with the Cat's not altogether grating meows,yet it often gets us >someplace. In this case, the place shows us something about the >license we give ourselves to use a kind of Kabbalistic jibberish to >indicate the way of thinking that's closest to our hearts. Resorting >to such language makes us extremely vulnerable, so as you suggest, >Michael, what is then required is a kind of decorum on the part of >the other to enable one to continue-- to continue to make sense out >of language which can so easily be made to appear foolish. > >The question is, to what jibberish do you care to lend credence, the >support of decorum? What jibberish do you leave alone as just >uninteresting, and what jibberish do you choose to "expose" >publicly? The choice here is crucial to philosophy, especially of >the Heideggerian sort. > >Allen > >Allen, firstly, thanks for this courteous and thoughtful reminder; >and thus, secondly, I must apologize to you and Cat (sorry, Jud, >sorry, GEVANS613 :-)) for flying off the handle and losing my kool: >bad hair(less) day. But this has raised an interesting, as you say, >point concerning the displays of language within a philosophic >milieu, especially within a Heideggerian discourse. > >In the attempt to think through in language something (some-think?) >that precisely evades, slips away as one tries to 'grasp' it, that >embraces oneself as one tries to make it stand still at that >distance required by ordinary language for its 'topic'... in this >attempt, one might be required to do a certain violence to ordinary >(and technical...) language and the tangle of commonsense >understandings that contextualize and situate it for the very >understandings it is meant to convey. One might need to push >language to certain extremes, not in a willful manner, necessarily, >but because one 'feels' pushed by the very thought-provoking matter >that one is, in a way, subject to; one then belongs to the >matter-to-hand, or rather, the matter-not-to-hand, and language then >becomes not a simple (or complex) medium for the expression of one's >thinking, but more the very site for the thinking to take place. >Thus, as you say, such a display of language in this strenuous >attempt to think (being), can make one vulnerable to potential >ridicule or accusations of pretentiousness and such. But, perhaps >more importantly, maybe it should be so, the vulnerability, that we >risk the venture with language, that such a venture might enable us >to hear the klang, the call, of language itself, the housing, the >dwelling-place, of being...? Michael, Do you mean to suggest that the vulnerablity to potential ridicule, accusations of pretentiousness etc. are somehow an enabling dimension of the language of thinking, or simply a side effect which must be dealt with "interpersonally" as part of doing business in philosophy? And if the former, should one seek out venues of expression in which this vulnerability is likely to be greater? 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_AJHx/gVU82+KKgQ76MvsbQ)
HTML VERSION:
Allen, just now:
Michael,
For whatever reason, some of us insist on trying to do something with the Cat's not altogether grating meows,yet it often gets us someplace. In this case, the place shows us something about the license we give ourselves to use a kind of Kabbalistic jibberish to indicate the way of thinking that's closest to our hearts. Resorting to such language makes us extremely vulnerable, so as you suggest, Michael, what is then required is a kind of decorum on the part of the other to enable one to continue-- to continue to make sense out of language which can so easily be made to appear foolish.
The question is, to what jibberish do you care to lend credence, the support of decorum? What jibberish do you leave alone as just uninteresting, and what jibberish do you choose to "expose" publicly? The choice here is crucial to philosophy, especially of the Heideggerian sort.
Allen
Allen, firstly, thanks for this courteous and thoughtful reminder; and thus, secondly, I must apologize to you and Cat (sorry, Jud, sorry, GEVANS613 :-)) for flying off the handle and losing my kool: bad hair(less) day. But this has raised an interesting, as you say, point concerning the displays of language within a philosophic milieu, especially within a Heideggerian discourse.
In the attempt to think through in language something (some-think?) that precisely evades, slips away as one tries to 'grasp' it, that embraces oneself as one tries to make it stand still at that distance required by ordinary language for its 'topic'... in this attempt, one might be required to do a certain violence to ordinary (and technical...) language and the tangle of commonsense understandings that contextualize and situate it for the very understandings it is meant to convey. One might need to push language to certain extremes, not in a willful manner, necessarily, but because one 'feels' pushed by the very thought-provoking matter that one is, in a way, subject to; one then belongs to the matter-to-hand, or rather, the matter-not-to-hand, and language then becomes not a simple (or complex) medium for the expression of one's thinking, but more the very site for the thinking to take place. Thus, as you say, such a display of language in this strenuous attempt to think (being), can make one vulnerable to potential ridicule or accusations of pretentiousness and such. But, perhaps more importantly, maybe it should be so, the vulnerability, that we risk the venture with language, that such a venture might enable us to hear the klang, the call, of language itself, the housing, the dwelling-place, of being...?
--