Heidegger

Tympan]: In your critique of Hillman you seem strongest if this is the right
word. There you are arguing against something you know well. In the end
Corbin is refering to a process of nested hierarchies not that there isn’t
something to what you say. Like Kant’s imagination the imaginal is in
between the intelligibles and the sensibles because it participates in both
realm. It’s the site of contradictions, paradoxes, tensions that leads from
gross sensory perception to increasingly subtle phenomena which finally is
way of reaching the solitary and silent language of angels. The
thing-in-itself or freedom is an angel which is just an image but as an
image it is an aid to seeing further if one likes angels anyway. The images
that work are different for different people. Then there is the breakdown of
the mind where it is torned apart as Hegel points out thinking of Schelling.
>From my point of view the imagination is a bridge that operates like a
focusing device that helps to gather the will into an intensifying freedom.
It makes contact and moves us because it is speaking to the affections as
much as to reason which makes it the expression of symbolic intuition?
[Bernard]: In that case the Will would not be “free” (i.e., limited to the
thinking function) but receptive to intra psychic or “unconscious” activity.
We would then
better be enabled to reckon with UIO, s, “Unidentified Inner Objects.”

Tympan: Your right, the word “freedom” refers to the emancipation of the
will from gross sensory perception and intellectual thinking about something
where it is a question of thinking about what a thing is through the
categories of the understanding. We could just as well say bonded as
receptive. I take the free will to mean an ideal degree. It means the
intensifying concentration of a desire that is scattered over too many
objects. In Heidegger’s Contributions he discusses how desire is scattered
about by way of what he calls the machinations of lived experience. In more
traditional language this scattering would be the work of curiosity
understood as a vice. I am sure he has this in mind in Being and Time where
he discusses the way the they-self is lost and not moving towards its
ownmost possibility as it would if it were being-in-the-world or held our
into the nothing. Being-in-the-world as I read it is a reckoning with UIOs.
It is not meant to mean a thinking and sensing activity where one is
thinking about something therefore identifying this or that. At most
being-in-the-world can be said to be a thought of that which remains to be
thought. It is a thinking of the unknown as such.

With guys like Bacon curiosity became a virtue of pure science. I would
rather think of the inquisitive questioning provoked by UIOs as what takes
up or bounds the will and all that withdrawn decathected libido that is not
so scattered all over the place. What we become receptive to is mystery,
that which is hidden and occulted, withdrawn and departing…

Tympan

Posted on Wednesday, January 31st, 2007 at 1:45 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback