Heidegger

> >—– Original Message —–
>
> >From: “allen scult”
>
> >To: “Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger”
>
> >
>
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 11:39 PM
>
> >Subject: Re: Broken Tools
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >> >In a message dated 24/05/2006 19:23:53 GMT Standard Time,
>
> >> >daxsein@hotmail.com writes:
>
> >> >
>
> >> > Well I am moving towards being transparent. If nobody here is
>
> >interested in
>
> >> > contemplative Christianity then I have to say I will be considering
>
> >leaving
>
> >> > this discussion for good this time around.
>
> >>
>
> >> I, for one, have enjoyed and profited from reports of your latest
>
> >> excursions. As has been true in excursions past, you seem to take
>
> >> pleasure in investigating the words that come up along the way–words
>
> >> like “effete” which just came up a post or two ago. There are some
>
> >> on the list who enjoy finding a word in the truth of its “proper”
>
> >> use, that is in its being properatized by Dasein caring. Without the
>
> >> risk of “transparency,” as you put it, there’s nothing to
>
> >> seriously(playfully) look at together. Even Gevans provides some
>
> >> moments like that–moments I can respond to without feeling I’m being
>
> >> jerked around, because at least for the moment, the words are there,
>
> >> themselves worthy of trust. The fact that one or two posts later, he
>
> >> reduces what we’ve done together to the same old objects-to -be
>
> >> -disparaged doesn’t undo what we’ve done, even though he wants to
>
> >> think it does.
>
> >>
>
> >> So stick around. Keep us posted. There’s nothing like
>
> >> creating/finding meaning and performing it, if I may put it that
>
> >> way. Gershom Scholem said the experience of the mystic is by its
>
> >> very nature communicable. That must be because the caring subject is
>
> >> willing to make itself transparent by letting the experience take
>
> >> possession of the words proper to it. Whatever that is, it’s hardly
>
> >> effeminate.
>
> >
>
> >> Regards until next time,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> > > Allen
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >Allen,
>
> > i find myself always wanting to respond to yours, … but with nothing
>
> >more than admiration, so i refrain. but i’d redouble your exhortation to
>
> >tympan back on yersef.
>
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for your note. I’m always up for reflexive possibilities
>
>which, by the way, I believe to be endless.
>
>But even with endless possibilities, there are still certain
>
>maneuvers that are impossible, and it seems to me that
>
>self-exhortation is one of them. Because my own discourse can’t
>
>really look back at itself, I depend, as the saying goes, on the
>
>kindness of strangers, except there are no strangers who understand
>
>me, as I think I understand Tympan, or anyone else for that matter.
>
>Fritz Perls of blessed memory argued that every observation about
>
>another’s inner life is only a projection. He recommended that I
>
>turn such a projection back on myself in what he called
>
>retroflection. He likened this maneuver to a boomerang. But I could
>
>never get one to return to me, so I don’t think it’s possible. All
>
>that having been said, I’m still open to any observations regarding
>
>my own version of transparency. I think this would be a significant
>
>exchange even if it’’s wrong.
>
>Allen, your antiformalist parable, yer little exhortation to Tympan
>on “investigating words” with “transparency” of self, is a perfect
>little philosophy of reading/writing/thinking, …which in a rare
>moment i would have struggled to say much less adequately at much
>greater length. seems like structuralism (the logos, no?) is always
>the trap the rest of us (you and rene, conspicuously excepted) fall
>into, …the iron cage that destroys the caring and the searching.
>
>
>
> >
>
> >anyway, i’m shocked to hear gershom scholem on the communicability(always
>
> >seems suspiciously freudian) of mysticism, tho i like yer notion of
>
> >transparency, …not that the caring mystic subject can wilfully
>
> >communicate, but is eo ipso transparent for those with eyes/ears. do you
>
> >have one in mind?
>
> >heid hovers on that edge, no? would you call his ‘communicable’?
>
>Scholem had nothing Freudian in mind as far as I know. He was making
>
>a rather straightforward point about the experience of the mystic.
>
>Without a reasonably satisfactory attempt at communicating it, the
>
>experience remains incomplete, without any real evidence to support
>
>it. I believe there are certain complete experiences in the early
>
>Heidegger as he was making the transition from religious to
>
>philosophical phenomenology. I think I can locate such passages if
>
>anyone is interested.
>
>Regards,
>
>Allen
>
>
>
>by all means, do.
>
>also i’d be interested to hear your explication of the holderlin
>which rene just cited. in my jaded formalist sense i tend to find
>him much in the way of wordsworth and shelley. surely holderlin is
>a mystic, eh? but how does it, such mysticism, avoid sinking to
>sententious cliche to us moderns?
>
>sat i’m off to florida for 2 wks. i’ll look forward to yours upon return.
>
>bob
>

Bob,

We crossed in the mails. Some people never cross at all. “Old men
without teeth stranded without love” (Dylan)

At any rate, I spent what little there was of my wad tonight
responding to Tympan’s opening. I hope to get to you in time.

Why go to Florida in the summer? It’s too damned hot.

Allen

Posted on Friday, June 2nd, 2006 at 4:25 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback