File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0311, message 137


Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:46:15 -0600
From: allen scult <allen.scult-AT-drake.edu>
Subject: The German (Scheler)


>
>  >>  On the contrary: one has to learn the own, origin,
>>>   via the strange, the own of the other. Or what is
>>>   co-being and tolerance?
>>>
>>>   The aversion to the German is almost always an aversion
>>>   to the own. The hate against a Feldweg, and all that
>>>   a Feldweg implies, is therefore at bottom not an
>>>   aversion to Heidegger or to the German, not even to
>>>   Heidegger's or German national socialism, but to one's
>>>   own way, and the pains of going it.
>>>
>>   > rdb
>
>
>There's no free lunch as they say.  Every dasein has to cope with the
>errancy which accompanies
>that particular way of being-in-the-world.  And because there is no
>being-in-the-world except as the particular being one is, errancy of
>the"German" sort  comes about in all of us.  With those of us who
>choose to think about things as Heidegger said them, the "German" too
>must be thought, rather than simply despised.  I think that's a good
>thing, because it leads us to try to think of better and better ways
>to think about our "German," as well as our other "others."
>
>Regards,
>
>Allen
>
>
>      Allen,
>
>      Nietzsche, who really rules the world now, in 1887 stated the goal thus:
>      Becoming aware, not as individuum, but as humanity.
>
>      Maybe technology is nothing more than an embarrasment (Barrabasment),
>      a dissolution of everything peculiar, original, specific, unique, as
>      it has been known for a long time. Of gods, if you will. Of godly,
>      that no longer consents to be called that way. How naive to think that
>      we just can take over: when the god falls, also the worshipper of that
>      god becomes impossible. ER becomes inevitable then, but we're not even
>      trying the way of the rope dancer, which is a higher, riskier one,
>      although still straight ahead on the one track. The jump of a fool is
>      enough to bring him down. But Zarathustra, on his way up to find *his*
>      circle, takes him on his back, out of sympathy. The advocate of circle
>      and misery (Leid) shows his kind of commiseration. (alone with a dead)
>
>      That the circle, wherein all gods are turned into idols, might *itself*
>      be godly  - Dionysos  - that is Nietzsche's greatest hope. There's a
>      special role for Spinoza also here, insofar he already 
>conceived of a god,
>      who is the whole process, and not only the 'good' part of it. 
>(cf. Hegel's
>      "grandiose initiative")
>
>      Or, as another German put it: one has to find one's way into the circle.
>

Hi Rene,

Yes, finding one's way.  But the way one finds cannot be one's own, 
at least not when
one finds it.  In the course of the finding one's way by 
reading/listening/thinking the words of another's way, the way of 
finding might begin to reveal something of own's own being-found, 
one's ownmost  Befindlichkeit (to mix a few dozen metaphors).

Your use of the word sympathy to describe what Zarathustra takes on 
on his way down, brings another German to mind, namely Scheler. 
Scheler critiques Heidegger's ontological claims for the primacy of 
care as arbibitrary projections of Heidedgger's Calvinist weight 
problem, his so called fundamental ontology a closeted 
Lebensphilosophie.  The only way around the problem is to unload the 
excess weight and give up the defense of any worldview.  What is left 
is what A.J. Heschel called, perhaps after Scheler, divine sympathy. 
Like Zarathustra, you find your way into the circle, bearing not God, 
out of sympathy, but rather through  a commitment to a sympathetic 
being in-with the world which grounds knowing as God knows.

I'm obviously following Scheler's way, for the moment, to see what 
can be thought that way, and am finding a number of Heidegger ideas 
by other words, especially words which point to the primordial 
structures of relationality (Scheler's Wesenheiten) which in-form 
cognition.  It seems that it was  Scheler's way, before it was 
Heidegger's , to conceive of being as giving a relational form 
(Heidegger's Seinsverhaeltnis) to knowing, a form that is apart from 
all content.  Heidegger, of course, says the same of the formale 
Anzeige--a benevolence which gives us a world to know by virtue of 
the indicative capacity of form to invite, elicit a way of seeing 
which lights up the essence of things

Allen (in love again, if only for a moment)



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005