Subject: RE: World corporatism and the Enframing of work
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:46:04 +0200
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl>




-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: HealantHenry-AT-aol.com [mailto:HealantHenry-AT-aol.com]
Verzonden: donderdag 24 april 2003 22:11
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Onderwerp: Re: World corporatism and the Enframing of work



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,

... while remaining phenomenology. Perceiving a river would be poetical too.
Possibly one of the first blows to this poetics has been Aristoteles' determination
of a river as a hypo-keimenon, Vor-lage or Unter-lage, sub-stratum for an orderly
speaking.
(No, the other way around: it was an ersatz-answer when muthos as archaic 
everydayness had died.)
 
Even looking at this screen: poetry. (Kant: the dark field of productive
Einbildungskraft)
In fact, he calls it: Phenomenology of the inconspicious. Everyone, as
a sensing being, is capable of it, and it is possible at any moment, at
any place.  

I agreed very much with your note on the instrumental. People have always
used instruments, as they have always died. So tech and death in H don't
indicate those topics unhistorically, in general. In BT this is not so clear
yet, although the question for the validity of ontological existentials 
cannot be elided. Husserl's resistance might be explained from Heidegger's
word in a late seminar, that he, Husserl, completely missed the geschichtliche
dimension. (point proved by the Crisis, I think.) To Heidegger, Geschichte is
the releasing instance, he writes often. Which means, that without the insight
in Geschichte, we cannot understand what is now.* But it is the not-understanding,
the walking-into-a-wall-character of H's thinking till 1930, that urges toward
Geschichte. 


*Mating of Ereignis (Being) and Geschick (Geschichte, time), in TB


regards

rene

 







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? 

into the piety of it all,
hen


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


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