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.

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’?

bob

Posted on Thursday, May 25th, 2006 at 5:15 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback