Heideggerian Neologisms
January 31st, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: Heideggerian Neologisms :: Heideggerian Neologisms :: Heideggerian Neologisms :: Heideggerian Neologisms
In a message dated 1/31/2007 8:44:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,
daxsein at hotmail.com writes:
>snipsnipFrom 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up or bounds the will and all that withdrawn decathected libido that is not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that which is hidden and occulted, withdrawn and departing…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
sincerely;
Bernard
