Heidegger

michaelP wrote: A brief refrain:

I wonder whether talk of Heidegger’s neologisms is not an obvious diversion
from underscoring his thinking proper, whether it is a spectacular straw
man. It seems to me now here that Heidegger’s neologisms and hyphenated
(old) logisms are partly erected to avoid richly metaphorical language
endemic of traditional philosophies and thus the metaphysics he is straining
against and with, but without resorting to the vacuous logico-positivisms
that terminate in symbolic logic (as if it were philosophy).

This would require a symbolic intuition, then it’s attendants, otherwise it would remain as vapid as you say.

Perhaps instead
of laying out his neologisms (which feel to me here now to be a stretching
of philosophemes to the very limit of language rather than a gratuitous
playing with new toys), we should look at the other fundamental feature of
his thinking: that of the movement and modes of movement of his thinking
trajectories. Turns, twists, reversals, chiasmuses, steps-back, leaps, etc.

Some agility here, ascent to a fiesty prose, and potential clarity or grace.

I cannot elaborate here now but it has been suggested by some (including
myself) that sometimes Heidegger’s pathways resound like Bachian fugues to
these hear ears. In this what is to be heard in his thinking-ways is not so
much the impressions of words and phrases (as if the meaning were contained
within or limited by a linear sequence of propositions) but in the
directions and gravitational pulls of the motifs, their play, their dance
(which are often very formal, classical, in their unstill stillness); the
geodesics of post-metaphysical metaphysics (it never goes, but can relax and
listen, lost in music).

MP3 player, with Heidegger spoken, sung, trilled, and much too and fro-ing, or lap dancing.

chao

John

enough already for now here

regards

michaelP

Posted on Wednesday, January 24th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback