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.

Tympan: Frankly this is interesting. There is lots of dangling knoted
threads that one could let unravel. I have been thinking of the idea of
handing something down, or better, the desrie to provoke imitation and
reproduction which inevitably involves innovation by the new generations.
One of the aspects that defines a culture is that it is ensuring its own
survival. It knows how to pass on a heritage. I am not talking about the
rote learning you mentioned above but a way of remembering that is also an
activity that does not involve ordinary memory. It refers more to the
experience that results from guarding the possible intellect or the honor of
Sophia to use an older mode. This is how wonder operates. The experience
feeds back into the activity of guarding, indeed, it is a sort of
nourishment and food that inspires further research into that which remains
as yet unknowable and so indicates the mystery of the understanding. It
gives strength to a bond. This is science because of the material that leads
to induction is the affection of an experience that make up a trial for the
human being. But it is science more like an art than a conceptualization
through the categories of the understanding.

Tympan

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 7:45 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback