Heidegger

Allen Anew: :The traditional interpretation, of course, is return to God,
but the expression itself has, in this case, dropped “God” because obvious,
thereby, perhaps inadvertently, but it doesn’t matter, leaving it open to
interpretation.. Anyway, I think the basic ” return to” is what’s essential
here–the movement, the how. . .

Tympan anew: Ultimately it is impossible to say, well, it’s a return to this
or that thing that is called such and such or a name in general. The mind
just goes silent and becomes unable to express whatever it is that one is
experiencing which as soon as it comes to language is no longer that. But
yet the proliferation of names shows how slippery the incomprehensible and
utterly unknowable is.

Allen anewnew: I’m very much attached to the notion of one man, one name.
For me it’s YHWH (I use here the root “consonants” of the Name as we find it
in the Torah, rather than Yahweh, because it’s the letters with which one
comes to be on intimate terms. Not so with Allah or Jesus. Each of the
names of God co-responds with a way of contemplation, as you might call it.
Name-of-God-wise, I’m a heavily invested monotheist. That’s the only way it
works, I think. Slippery and incomprehensible to comprehend or hold onto
perhaps, but not to practice. And out of practice comes possibilities for
thought, at least for me. Kabbalists like Abulafia and Isaac the Blind
focus too hard on the name and its letters (There’s a relationship we could
spend some time on!), but their writings give one “pause” to think on,
enriching the moments of thoughtful intimacy with the letters and the aura
they give off for those who think in relationship to them, that is in
relationship the singular Thou.

tympan: Sorry to take so long to respond was busy and took a break from
communicating with just about everyone. One of the nice benefits of being a
bachelor and enjoying one’s own company.

The name of God that you point seems like it is one that leaves you tongue
tied. I have a vague understanding of how the name and the letters are used
in the Kabbala. My probably simplistic view is that the letters are
sometimes used to improve concentration. A monotheist by definition is
obssesed with cultivating a narrow focus so everything is geared towards
staying on track and following the traces…. after all there is only God’s
back in front of us no? I always get the sense of being left behind by the
glory of the past and arriving very late in history and having to deal with
missing the boat to the promised land.

Tymp: I think today we would use the word “metonomy” to describe this
displacement of the object of our desire rather than our needs or appetites?
But yeah that is my mantra, the how… is it not a turning movement or
conversion of the mind such that it is not governed by the appetites or need
but it’s beautiful shiny object and goal up in the heavens?

Allen anewnew: That’s part of the work of (consolation of) philosophy. I
have trouble with “governed” in any version of the “how.” It’s not so much
a choice you make ( maybe that’s not what you meant), but an altered mood in
which you find yourself, after giving yourself over to the work, but, of
course, not always.

tympan: No not a choice ultimately but I do speak of effort that’s the
Catholic in me. The Fathers of the church can be said to speak in terms of a
dynamic back-and-forth play between human effort (choice) and grace (no
choice but gift, surprise, etc.). Maybe the word governed is not always the
choice word but there is a question of abandonment to what you called “work”
just now and a Christian might think of as the “will of the Father”. This is
the whole conversion experience where the salvation of the soul or mind is
at stake and probably the purpose of conversing for some of us. The hard
part it seems to me is separating our own intentions, vanity and pride for
instance and the will of the Father. Often one can detect for example
spiritual hubris or arrogance by simply paying attention when one is smiling
and feeling good as one discusses spiritual matters. Often this smiling that
only you can detect is a kind of smug sense of security and narcissistic
comfort that simply is an expression of a proud mind and not a humble one.
At this point it is enough to see the lack of humility and associated
feeling and return to sobriety and seriousness which can in turn be a very
subtle further expression of extreme hubris . It’s like you see yourself
becoming a champion or spiritual hero and how silly the pursuit is at which
point perhaps you start seeing the wisdom of being crazy.

The appetites, on the other hand, come and go. How they come and go is
between me and them. (Time to switch to the first person.) The stoics,
beautiful as they are, apply philosophy too directly to the task, I think.
But as with the Kabbalists, they do give one pause to think. And then
there’s eros, especially in the Phaedrus. I delay figuring that one out
because it’s too active, or perhaps I’m too re-active. I’ll let you know.

tympan: the Phaedrus well that’s a sacred text on the very art of pausing of
ruling over the unruly horse that wants to control the chariot. One could
also follow through the how here by way of Aristotle and his commentators
discussion of de anima. Without these there is no way of seeing how the how
works to refine our thoughts and so save the soul and get closer to the holy
of holies and so on.

regards,
tympan

Regards,

Allen

Posted on Saturday, June 24th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback
Tags: God» religion»