Heidegger

Tympan Segment 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).

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

Tymp: Good to see your name pop up. Whatever the case may be I can’t see
understanding anything without the practical activity whereby the will is
freed up from its bondage to the influence of envy, anger, lust and such
eventhough some of these perhaps have their positive application when for
instance anger is understood as contempt or lust as crazy love. Hegel in the
encyclopedia sees this enslavement of the will much like Spinoza as a road
block to moving on towards the telos of happiness. This is the practice that
he discusses in the part of the encycloedia called anthropology where he
discusses mental illness and such phenomena as animal magnetism,
clairvoyance, daydreaming, etc. Practice always comes before more
theoretical seeing otherwise you end up with confused ideas because of the
inability to guard the heart-mind well enough to hear the suggestive
intelligibles of the Active Intellect, of the concept or more embracing
idea. Perhaps moving through practice to theoretical seeing involves the
universal form the emerges with intellectual intuition and isn’t this a
symbolic intuition that is not so influenced by what causes confused ideas?

Tympan

Hi

I think so…it is one thing to practice, and one thing to see theoretically. I would suggest that seeing theoretically does involve a component regarded as “symbolic intuition” otherwise it would not be theorectical….however, even practice may be ‘innately’ theoretical in that to practice what was ‘handed down’ or otherwise conveyed in the sense of seeing, as in an intuition, would not involve anything more than a type of rote or remembrance of movements, simple habits, but most definately not habits of the heart.

What did Aristotle write? “Quality is not an act. Quality is a habit.” There is some symbolic intuition required to see the meaning of this statement, and that should be obvious. Philosophy is thinking ’slowly’….

Of course there are other habits which may not be qualitative, but there is no way of defending that since here, and elsewhere, there is always a ‘difference’ as to what is in the result of habiting, or even ‘in-habiting’ and that has to do with the practice of life on a purely ’symbolic level’…

Take for instance the Japanese “tea ceremony” in which it has been reported by Braudel, in his volume 1, The Structures of Everyday Life, that to perform the Japanese Tea Ceremony properly requires an education, and a teacher just as much as a Westerner requires a teacher to learn how to play a classical piano piece.

Therefore what is symbolized by the Japanese Tea Ceremony is what is universal in a symbolic sense to many other forms of true celebratory sequences or habits….I would also suggest that habits are in fact the same as an ethic or better yet an ethos.

Earth and other habits herein become the One and the Other, just that each individual is responsible for emulating, in the truest sense of a universal practice, that which in effect is to be emulated…and that would be something radiant, self sufficient and illuminating, something unitive and without question as to it’s primordial nature in being part and parcel an expression of the fundament.

Even the most detailed and protracted science is a attempt at play, at amusement….Science is a beginning for those who start out with a telescope, prior to adolescence, prior to recognition, prior to acknowledgement, and prior to the a priori…but I only mean science in that sense of the word which refers to a fundamental finding of some interconnection and possibility, no matter how symbolic that object is intuited.

I don’t think that the nascent science of the astronomer is anything other than a form of ’self discovery’ or ‘connection’ that was never practical….it just starts out as that weird and wonderful object which is unknown except in terms of its relations and connectivity.

but who am I to say otherwise?

chao

John

Posted on Tuesday, January 30th, 2007 at 2:40 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback