Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:09:00 +0200
From: artefact-AT-t-online.de (Michael Eldred)
Subject: Gestell UND Gewinnst


Cologne 25-Apr-2003

HealantHenry-AT-aol.com schrieb Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:11:02 EDT:

> In a message dated 4/24/03 12:04:14 PM, artefact-AT-t-online.de writes:
>
> >> Planetary corporatism describes the technological appropriation of the
> >social pretty damn well.
>
> >For me, the question is how this "technological" meshes with the "social".
> >Capitalism is a name for Mitsein, i.e. it is a form of social relations.
> >This social dimension cannot be reduced to the technological and demands its
> >own ontology.
>
> dear Michael,
> Behind these issues is thinking about where mitsein ends up after the
> turning, twisting (Kehre) from SuZ to 'later heidegger' inwhich a "thinking
> of Being historically" unfolds from what seems to me to be a very much other
> way of thinking about the question of Being. (Eg., the first is a
> phenomenology, the later a poetic thinking...)

Henry,
I am making a pitch for a phenomenology of social being (Mitsein), not for how to
assess the twists and turns in Heidegger's thinking, which is another issue.
These twists and turnings are more an accretion of different facets and aspects
than a surrender of previous positions.

> Garnering up its "own ontology" for the social in the face of Gestell is
> confusing for me, and, frankly, alternating passages of Aristotle doesn't
> help, though i see the genealogy of Heidegger's thinking there.
>
> I don't seem to have a question formulated, but have I given you food for
> thought?

Yes, there's pabulum enough there. I agree that raw Aristotle is not enough, but
I did not just point to Aristotle in my last post. My indications are apparently
not sufficient for you to follow. That's not surprising, considering that
thoughts take decades to bubble up to the light of day.

Another hint: Heidegger's thinking (its core) is a translation into German from
the Greek (mainly Aristotle). That is not simply a matter of the genealogy of his
thinking, but is all-decisive in understanding it. Today we no longer understand
Aristotle and have to try to recover and rethink his thinking. Heidegger made a
brilliant start with this recovery and rethinking, but had his own focus, to the
neglect of other phenomena, especially sociality (Mitsein), whose ontology
remains sketchy under Heidegger's hand. (E.g. witness how Heidegger rightly, but
also bluntly and evasively, disposes of the phenomenon of you-and-me in GA26 and
GA27.)

Das Gestell has to be complemented by das Gewinnst (cf. the German version of my
earlier Marx und Heidegger paper).

There are big questions here, which need more space and more time to unfold,
later, lastly, posthumously.

Cheers,
Michael
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-  artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-artefact-AT-webcom.com _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_






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