Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:40:28 -0600
From: allen scult <allen.scult-AT-drake.edu>
Subject: Re: Method



--Boundary_(ID_z3tLnid2MPFEeggbiMH62g)

At 6:10 PM +0100 2/22/02, Rene de Bakker wrote:


>
>  >
>>Rene,
>>
>>Do you mean to say that the formal indication indicated by the words
>>of the philosopher is similar in its "work" to the image painted by
>>the  painter?
>
>Rather, that when human talk of things is robbed from its metaphysical
>dimension,

Does this "when" mean to suggest that sometimes human talk is not 
robbed from its metaphysical dimension?  Is the "when" here an 
epochal occurrence, suggesting that the robbery takes somewhat 
different forms in different epochs?




>these things, that in their at-hand-ness just seem to remain the
>same, are not the same anymore. As we aren't. Only, that we cannot
>experience a difference, because the basic difference Sein-Seiendes isn't
>open anymore. Not, that WE do not let it in anymore, far from that. It is
>taken away. (Heidegger says: Being is the staying-out of Being. So that
>what remains, are just beings without Being) But when Nietzsche and,
>slightly different, Heidegger indicate this, the ears to hear it aren't
>there any more. I don't mean anything negative or arrogant, it belongs to
>the indicated.  We're the ones that are addressed, but that is precisely
>what we don't want. Again: not because WE don't want it, but because we are
>the not-wanted. But even then, there is still Being!!! It's ownmost is to
>hide. But as hiding, staying-out, it stays. But (dammit) not for us. Like
>the station, that 'is', also when I don't have it in mind.

Of course it couldn't be any other way.  If you had being addressed 
by Being in mind, you  would have to relinquish the longing which is 
indicated at the end of your paragraph.  It's what I know at some 
level "IS," but I don't have in mind, I can't quite think it, so I 
don't have it. All I have are words which seem to indicate it. But 
the poet knows how much that is:

"Myths are the very soul of our actions and loves.  we can act only 
in pursuit of a phantom.  We can love only what we create"
						Paul Valery

>
>Heidegger cites what he calls a "terrible word" of Hoelderlin: "The Germans
>cannot use me." If there has ever been an indicating, it is Hoelderlin's,
>but he was simply forgotten, until his re-discovery just before WW1, at a
>time when Heidegger still had to become what he was. And, although knowing
>Hoelderlin already early, only received the signs 1933/34, when the
>Ereignis came. Only him, who has, can be given.
>Of this Hoelderlin, Heidegger says, that while being (dead and) forgotten,
>he WAS . as he says of , in the Heraclit seminar, that he still IS

That's why some of us like rummaging around in these old texts, 
apparently reduced to ashes, but still containing some embers which 
perhaps can be ignited.



>
>I earlier mentioned the station in Zuerich, in the Zoll. Sem. , and that we
>travel to it, without knowing that and what the thing is itself. We really
>believe that our notion of it is enough. What the hell, it works, doesn't
>it? And like a college said to me: you're thinking about that? But that's
>completely crazy! I had to agree with him.
>What I didn't say to him is that meanwhile he is no less crazy, because he
>cannot prevent going to stations and the like.
>There is a passage in "The principle of reason", where H writes: "Why does
>this not knock us over?"
>If there would be no limit to the power of indication, one could knock over
>everybody.


It's extraordinary how these "protections" are built into the design 
of language to keep large numbers of us safe from "destruktion."  Is 
it some sort of natural selection which "arranged" things so 
everybody didn't get knocked over?



>
>  >It seems to me that the painter is necessarily involved in a kind of
>>"dissembling" which shows the other "only his object," as you say. It
>>is the nature of paint as a material substance which produces the
>>exigencies which the painter must  manipulate in order to show what
>>he sees.  The philosopher, on the other hand, "reads" the formal
>>indication he forms directly off of the "material" of factic life.
>  >Thus the words of the philosopher comprise a formal indication of a
>>formal indication which can be "read back" to the things themselves.
>>Not so with the artist.  As you suggest, when you x-ray the paint,
>>you don't get to the things themselves, but simply to deeper levels
>>of paint.
>
>This was seen, but in a more charming way, by Leibniz.


This doesn't surprise me.






>
>
>ps meanwhile, Allen, the working and talking with (young) people is
>important. Yesterday I had a first reading session (Monadology), with
>phil students from Leiden. Unique chance to think under some pressure.
>


I look forward to the opportunities for that kind of pressure:

"Whoever is a teacher through and through takes all things seriously 
only in relation to his students-even himself" ( Nietzsche)

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_z3tLnid2MPFEeggbiMH62g)

HTML VERSION:

>
>Rene,
>
>Do you mean to say that the formal indication indicated by the words
>of the philosopher is similar in its "work" to the image painted by
>the  painter?

Rather, that when human talk of things is robbed from its metaphysical

dimension,

these things, that in their at-hand-ness just seem to remain the
same, are not the same anymore. As we aren't. Only, that we cannot
experience a difference, because the basic difference Sein-Seiendes isn't
open anymore. Not, that WE do not let it in anymore, far from that. It is
taken away. (Heidegger says: Being is the staying-out of Being. So that
what remains, are just beings without Being) But when Nietzsche and,
slightly different, Heidegger indicate this, the ears to hear it aren't
there any more. I don't mean anything negative or arrogant, it belongs to
the indicated.  We're the ones that are addressed, but that is precisely
what we don't want. Again: not because WE don't want it, but because we are
the not-wanted. But even then, there is still Being!!! It's ownmost is to
hide. But as hiding, staying-out, it stays. But (dammit) not for us. Like

the station, that 'is', also when I don't have it in mind.

Heidegger cites what he calls a "terrible word" of Hoelderlin: "The Germans
cannot use me." If there has ever been an indicating, it is Hoelderlin's,
but he was simply forgotten, until his re-discovery just before WW1, at a
time when Heidegger still had to become what he was. And, although knowing
Hoelderlin already early, only received the signs 1933/34, when the
Ereignis came. Only him, who has, can be given.
Of this Hoelderlin, Heidegger says, that while being (dead and) forgotten,
he WAS . as he says of , in the Heraclit seminar, that he still IS

I earlier mentioned the station in Zuerich, in the Zoll. Sem. , and that we
travel to it, without knowing that and what the thing is itself. We really
believe that our notion of it is enough. What the hell, it works, doesn't
it? And like a college said to me: you're thinking about that? But that's
completely crazy! I had to agree with him.
What I didn't say to him is that meanwhile he is no less crazy, because he
cannot prevent going to stations and the like.
There is a passage in "The principle of reason", where H writes: "Why does
this not knock us over?"
If there would be no limit to the power of indication, one could knock over
everybody.

>It seems to me that the painter is necessarily involved in a kind of
>"dissembling" which shows the other "only his object," as you say. It
>is the nature of paint as a material substance which produces the
>exigencies which the painter must  manipulate in order to show what
>he sees.  The philosopher, on the other hand, "reads" the formal
>indication he forms directly off of the "material" of factic life.

>Thus the words of the philosopher comprise a formal indication of a
>formal indication which can be "read back" to the things themselves.
>Not so with the artist.  As you suggest, when you x-ray the paint,
>you don't get to the things themselves, but simply to deeper levels
>of paint.

This was seen, but in a more charming way, by Leibniz.

ps meanwhile, Allen, the working and talking with (young) people is
important. Yesterday I had a first reading session (Monadology), with

phil students from Leiden. Unique chance to think under some pressure.

--