Heidegger

Also one should not get frustrated if response stays out - rather it is a sign
that one has approached a sphere of importance, and that’s why one is all
alone there.
At most, one can talk to those in the same position, while any desire still to
convince others is awkward. Is it not enough that they retreat themselves
precisely there where philosophy *begins*?

so, with a memory, one has, as to the beginnings of SuZ, not so much the book,
but the relation of being and time itself, several intro’s, which are being neglected.

1. Heidegger’s discussion of BT in the Contributions, that its background is
the forgetting of Being, Seinsvergessenheit, which, first of all, has to announce
itself, as Anklang/echo, and without which all talk becomes useless (as we have
experienced and do always more)

2. Aristotle’s To on legetai pollachos. Where legetai is not subjective speaking.
This formula, the title of Brentano’s book, brought the Blitz, which accompagnied
the entire road Heidegger went since. (also: Logos as the Blitz in Heraklitus)

3. More hidden: the ‘poetical’ motivation of Sein und Zeit: the ‘Nietzschean’ poets
George, Trakl, Rilke, read by Heidegger before and during the first ww.
See an earlier post on Trakl, and his call in the poem “Der Ruin” for a new dimension,
with “more clear Ereignisse”. The poets were the only ones who offer a perspective
after Nietzsche. Also they refer to Nietzsche’s poetry, and that is to the relation
of philosophy and poetry.

The ongoing neglect of rows like this one (1-3) makes one feel very much at ease
over against the betterknowers, incl the one inside.

–

is there maybe someone familiar with Trakl, who can bring the poem “Der Ruin”?

no need to get unfriendly, Al.

which makes me think of an exception to american autism: Years ago, Kenneth spoke
of inaccessible German depth, so it *is* possible to acknowledge, even if for a moment,
what one does not know. Without such, one gets nowhere.

–

it is, i believe, possible to see the Starez Sosima’s words on death and hell in perspective
with Heidegger’s mortals. Esp. the impossibility/unwill to die, as it is told in the bible, and
the current unwill to BE mortal, impedes death as the possibility to become im-mortal,
“der holde Tod”.
In the same book, The brothers Karamazov, see also Ivan’s rebellious story to Aljoscha,
of one not acknowledging, downright refusing divine harmony, the freedom which surely is there
not to do so, either to walk for 10 trillion lightyears towards harmony, or not to do it, and lie on
one’s back and remain eternally the same. All these things are changing from literature into
reality.

Also Karl Kraus comes to mind. He used to grant the best place in the cafe to the poet.
Trakl.

rene

Posted on Wednesday, June 21st, 2006 at 11:15 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback