Heidegger

Tympan,

Thanks for returning my call.

I think each of us is capable of understanding the other’s thinking because
of the ways in which thinking is reflected in language, language that is
willfully put forward as a translation for the other of what is going on in
one’s mind. That’s not the only willful putting forward of language of
course. There are dozens of other speech-act possibilities. But the
willful putting forward of a translation for the other of a reflection of
thought as one sees it developing is about as generous as we get with one
another. I recognize the generous putting forward and respond in kind. The
ongoing result definitely approaches circularity, as you suggest. Such
exchanges are at the heart of Gadamer’s understanding of hermeneutics. But
as I said in my last post, there’s no way I can understand my own thinking
as well as I understand yours. I guess because of the fact that you and I
can come to an understanding, a Sichverstehen, as Heidegger puts it. The
way language works makes it difficult to impossible for me to come to an
understanding with myself. “Thinking comes to language in dialogue.” I
didn’t expect to arrive at this point, but here I am. Whaddyah think?

tympan: Well, I think you have make the effort to stay the course and
dialogue more.

Allen It’s interesting, understanding DOES really have a mood. I’m thinking
the understanding referred to here is a WAY of understanding. I think that’s
what we share here.

Tympan: You mean by understanding the activity indicated by
being-in-the-world or something else?

Allen: The mood I seem to be in these days points me in the direction of
dialogue. I can do nothing but follow and make appropriated
response/observations along the way. That was quite an elision; my
apologies, but I think you can get the idea.You seem to be saying similar
below regarding ek-statically bemooded observations,

tympan: What you read is not wrong but I have been thinking on a daily
basis of a practice, a way of standing out… perhaps not unlike a seed that
sprouts and starts to emerge from the dark ground but nevertheless something
is held back so there is a tension between what is emerging out
unconcealment and what is returning into concealment. Perhaps one can
picture it as a living pillar.

Allen :though I don’t quite see how the killing of the first born fits in.
That sort of collatoral damage is a bi-product of any operation of that
presumptuous magnitude.

Tympan: Really? It has the “spiritual meaning” of nipping in the bud an
intentional thought to sin. I thought I made this clear the last couple of
days. The expression makes reference to the practice of meditation and to
what attentive vigilance is looking out for. You are not thinking in a
literal manner are you? It has a spiritual meaning in the sense that it
indicates how through prayer one is dealing with temptations whether they an
emerging sin or an emerging blessing which can be just as harmful. I assumed
you read (re:BT may31st?). Partly it reads, “This process of entombment
[with Jesus after the crucifixtion] never ends just like there is an ongoing
empowerement of the I when one follows Moses which can only happen through a
constant guarding of the heart. This practice involves what Gregory of Nyssa
in “The Life of Moses” calls a principle without which “it is impossible to
flee the Egyptian life”. This principle involves the ongoing and constant
sacrifice of “the first born of Egypt”. It is an important figurative
expression that shows how contemplative practice works I added Ibn Arabi’s
further comment that it is also important to question any emerging blessings
and not just a tempting sin. The “firstborn of Egypt” means an intention to
sin. Contemplatives like St. Gregory of Nyssa teach us how to cut it off
before it is actualized. This practice is what allows one to ascend the
mountain like Moses. It’s the purification required to approach the inner
sanctuary.

tympan old: I have been thinking if I were Jewish reading Heidegger given
what I have been saying lately I would see Heidegger connect to the practice
of killing the “first born of Egypt” through his being-in-the-world which is
itself a psychological spiritual therapy i.e. leads to the tranquility of
the mind that is there when one is guarding the heart mind and there is a
sense of wonder before the beyng of the things themselves. It’s a being
towards death just like the model at issue in the Baptism of water in St.
Basil’s “Concerning Baptism” but it is also the story of the struggle for
the recognition of the people of Isreal through a dividing of the I or
through a disidentification of the I with it’s narcissistic individuality
such that you get Selfhood or Dasein. The foundational stone is the start of
the construction of pehaps a third Temple of a New Jerusalem? Of course it’s
not according to the final wishes of Heidegger but it works when you are
thinking through a sort of structural analogical imagination. It all
reinforces the goal of mental health understood as the practice where one
guards the heart mind.The practice prepares the Bride for the Bridegroom
where Isreal is the soul.This way one attains some measure of peace that is
ecumenical and interfaith oriented. The building of a temple is a process, a
redeeming practice, a way towards sanctification but also the midrash of an
ongoing conversational circle. It is an emergent network where each person
is a “node”, “cell”, “lodge”, “altar”, “chamber”, etc; participating
according to their allotted portion or gift or blessing in a temple process.
The common purpose is clear — the killing of the first born of Egypt i.e.
mental health. St. Basil says as much when he in “Concerning Baptism” writes
that the “solicitude of the inner man is of the first importance, that the
mind may be free from distraction and, as it were, be identified with the
aim of giving glory to God […] We men are easily prone to sins of thought.
Therefore, he who has formed each heart individually, knowing that the
impulse received from the intention constitutes the major element in sin,
has ordained that purity in the ruling part of the soul be our primary
concern.” The most important thing is the renewal of the old self, the
sanctification of Egyptian roots such that the people of Isreal can be
recognized as much as the influence of the sacred heart of Jesus inside our
own heart. I was saying this involves a radical sublimation of
self-interested exchange that leads to a more universal expression of
interest or love. The basic principle even of Joseph Smith founder of the
Mormons was following the model of dying with Jesus and redeeming oneself
through that practice and so through the Baptism of the waters of mercy, of
the active intellect or first good. It’s the story of the life of Moses.

Allen: I think there’s a problem here regarding the reconfiguration of
referents. Midrash, even of the extreme Philonic sort, never confuses what
is called in Hebrew the “mashal” and the “nimshal.” The first is the
paradigmatic figure, the second, the derived figure.

Tympan: I didn’t know that. Would you like to say more? I think there is
something to what you say. Above I am thinking of practice or prayer. The
figures used I think of as points of focus that one leaves when the mind
comes to rest on the ineffable. They are ways of concentrating and
cultivating attentiveness like the Jesus chant, or the monophonic chanting
of early music.

Allen: Derive all the figures you want, but I think it’s important to keep
the originary paradigmatic figure respectfully uncontaminated. That way we
can all be brothers and share the same text.

Tympan: A word like “heart mind” indicates a bridge where there is a
criss-crossing of one’s own thoughts and that which is beyond anything going
inside our heads and certainly beyond words and language. A certain way of
existing is indicated but not described. So when I speak about the practice
of “guarding the heart mind” this points to the cultivation of a pure
intention and not the seeing of anything or the hearing of anything. It is
this darkness, to use what to me is obviously figurative, that constituted
the cloud through which Moses approached God [exod. 20:10]. St Gregory of
Nyssa interprets this by saying that “As the mind progresses and, through an
ever greater and more perfect diligence, comes to apprehend reality, as it
approaches more nearly to contemplation, it sees more clearly what of the
divine nature is uncontemplated.” (from “The Life of Moses”). I understand
your concern and I think I share it but I cannot be sure. I say this because
for many years as far as I can remember you have not discussed how it is
that one can go about keeping “the originary paradigmatic figure
respectfully uncontaminated. ” I can’t be sure, Allen, what it is we are
supposed to be “sharing”. For me it is about sharing a contemplative
practice, prayer most of all that leads to ‘understanding’ that which cannot
be understood or felt by any kind of ecstatic mood for that matter. So, to
use an illustration, Nyssa writes that when Moses has ascended the mountain
to the very limit and is in a dark cloud and he can’t figure anything out
anymore he “passes on to the tabernacle not made with hands”. This
“tabernacle” is an odd figure for it is a figure of that which is without
figure. It *draws* the imaginative faculty out of making figures or in other
words it has a spiritual therapeutic intent because it quiets the mind which
might otherwise be agitated by the imagination. The imagination has to learn
to question itself and it can only do that if it knows how it is that
thoughts emerge like, as I was saying, the “first born of Egypt” or even the
notion of an emergent blessing or gift. This is the role of a figurative
imagination and the arts. Either way, whether it is a question of nipping in
the bud a sin or a blessing the stories point to a practice of redemption
through which after much effort one can come to peace of mind until the
weather changes anyway and a storm comes our way. One can be sure that the
weather will change no doubt about that,– that is why vigilance and
practice is necessary right until we pass away. Like I said I can’t be sure
but in so far as prayer is concerned even that most beneficial kind which is
“pure prayer” is written into the sacred texts and it’s meaning, at least by
the church Fathers, is brought out by what is called the “spiritual
meaning”. This meaning points to a contemplative practice. The discussion of
such practice is a conversational circle in the precise sense of an ascent
of mount Whatever that involves a practice of purification which can only
happen through prayer that leads to that which remains concealed, remains
uncontemplated, is yet to be thought if not beyond both intelligence and the
senses. These networks of dialogue are base hermeneutical communities whose
mission is spiritual therapy,– peace of mind. Practicing is the hard part.
Making it into an ethos is hard. Hour to hour going “Oh, there is another
emerging thought, what nonsense I keep thinking”, this is hard.

Thanks for your thoughts, you might still see something that makes no sense
to you but I am thinking through what I have to work out more like the role
of the imagination in spiritual therapy. It’s a tool through which we learn
to see that for the most part our life is full of thoughts that are no more
than useless fantasy. It seems to me that one can make the distinction
between a not very helpful use of the imagination and one that is reedeming.
The Biblical imagination is certainly reedeming in the precise sense that
you get when the “spiritual meaning” or the meaning that has to do with how
the praying mind works is brought out. This is what interpretation is for so
are the best conversational circles which lead to true healing and are
intelligent.

regards,
tympan

Regards for now,

Allen

Posted on Saturday, June 3rd, 2006 at 6:20 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback