Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 20:01:52 +0000
Subject: Re: Martin Heidegger the intellectual mentor of the left
From: "Michael Pennamacoor" <pennamacoor-AT-enterprise.net>


> THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3096993712_795345_MIME_Part

Michael said:

...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...?

Then Allen:

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,

I think I mean that in venturing the game with the language of thinking (being) one has to
become open to being and language and thus one is vulnerable to the influx of certain
charges... I do not think I mean that vulnerablity to potential ridicule, accusations of
pretentiousness etc. are themselves enabling but might well accompany the risk of the game
and one should only bother with interpersonal dealings that devolve from such as a matter
of the 'social' and business course (or not) of doing philosophy. I'm not sure what you
mean by venues of expression -- could you elucidate? I just feel that the openness (to
being) that is thinking insinuates and reflects itself in the taking language to the
limits of its ordinary comprehensibility and usage and this might make one vulnerable,
etc. And this has nothing to do with any false linguistic bad behaviour (philosophers
behaving badly, anyone?). Is this an answer or another question?

michaelP

--MS_Mac_OE_3096993712_795345_MIME_Part

HTML VERSION:

Michael said:

...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...?

Then Allen:

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,

I think I mean that in venturing the game with the language of thinking (being) one has to become open to being and language and thus one is vulnerable to the influx of certain charges... I do not think I mean that vulnerablity to potential ridicule, accusations of pretentiousness etc. are themselves enabling but might well accompany the risk of the game and one should only bother with interpersonal dealings that devolve from such as a matter of the 'social' and business course (or not) of doing philosophy. I'm not sure what you mean by venues of expression -- could you elucidate? I just feel that the openness (to being) that is thinking insinuates and reflects itself in the taking language to the limits of its ordinary comprehensibility and usage and this might make one vulnerable, etc. And this has nothing to do with any false linguistic bad behaviour (philosophers behaving badly, anyone?). Is this an answer or another question?

michaelP