Heidegger

>
> > Amor fati is one of the more important ideas I’ve gleaned from
>> Nietzsche. Your rendering of it as “active acceptance” takes in
>> other Nietzschian ideas, and is just plain a good idea.
>>
>> It seems to me the time factor is crucial here. Enter Heidegger.
>> Could it be that Heidegger teaches Nietzsche? Definitely.
>
>Allen, yes, and chronologically later Heidegger echoes amor fati with
>gelassenheit; in my opera, Nietzsche begins to critique Heidegger gently
>(and not just on Heidegger’s take on Nietzsche)… attempting to bring
>Heidegger’s unblossomed (thinking) blooms a-blooming.
>
>> It’s similar to the rather radical (that is, held by radical rabbis)
>> rabbinic notion, that the Oral Torah preceded the written Torah.
>
>Can you refer me to where you have gleaned this extraordinary notion?

An extraordinary notion it is. The possibilities of temporal
juxtapositions are endless. The reference I’m afraid is not easily
accessible, sitting amongst all manner of verbal brickabrack from my
days as a failed rabbinical student. I think it might be a saying of
Isaac the Blind. Anyway, the important thing is that it was said.

>
>> That is the interpretation, the way of understanding, the understood
>> precedes the Torah text itself.
>
>…in the beginning was the logos (not words as such, but the
>intelligibility, understandability, possibility of words); is this
>comparable, do you think, of the Derridean (taken humorously from
>Heideggerian notions of destinings) notion that these (deep philosophical,
>pre-scriptural) pre-textual understandings were, as it were, sent (posted)
>ahead to be later encountered, invisibly and silently, accompanying and
>escorting later readings of texts (themselves once accompanied by these
>pre-posted understandings)? The sacred texts are themselves interpretations?

The Kabbalists especially are fascinated by this, and express their
fascination through this passionate variation of the theme: What we
have in the Torah is merely a trace left by the letters of the Divine
Name.

>
>> Heidegger enunciates similar notions by way of indicating the place
>> of his work in the wider philosophical scheme of things. First he
>> says that Plato can only be understood through Aristotle’s
>> lens(Plato’s Sophist), then later (The Nietzsche lectures) that the
>> great thinker never thinks his greatest thought.
>
>… but he sends it packing ahead, cryptically enclosed in the crypt of
>be-ing (understanding that be-ing is necessarily cryptic, that it can only
>be exposed as a crypt, as something hidden, is Heraclitus’ gift to the
>thinker).

Again the Kabbalists on the Sephirot as “Ten luminous emanations that
reveal the light that must remain hidden”( Elliot Wolfson rendering).
This gives us a somewhat different perspective on the interaction
between concealment and unconcealment in Aletheia, which I find to be
a genuine improvement over Heidegger’s understanding of it in
“Parmenides.: Too much concealment in Heidegger’s explication,
reflecting the very mistake he makes in his understanding of the
concept itself.

Best regards,

Allen

>
>> The New Year comes awfully early this year. Go figure that out.
>
>It’s already autumn in Sandwich (it used to patiently wait until well into
>September and normally after a goodly summery summer, but I hardly noticed
>the summer this year).
>
>> Best regards,
>
>and to you
>
>michaelP
>
>> Allen
>
>_______________________________________________
>heidegger mailing list
>heidegger@an-archos.com
>http://an-archos.com/mailman/listinfo/heidegger_an-archos.com
>http://heidegger.an-archos.com/

Posted on Saturday, August 25th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback