Heidegger

Rene mentioned this distinction [sorry, out of context I know]:

things technical vs. things natural, things made vs. things spontaneous

Rene, I know you are following a very particular path (a long and winding
road — that takes me to your door [Beatles, ’60s]), but along the wayside
might I tempt you to a temporary place of rest: is it not a later (both
chronologically and logically) development for physis and techne to be
posited of things? Could this be a pasting/pro-jecting onto things, thus
producing two domains, two sections, two markings-off, of ta panta, of
beings-as-a-whole (and thus within be-ing)? If that is even credible, what
is the nature of what is pasted/pro-jected? Could these be different ways of
viewing/thinking any thing (rather than two types of thing)? One could
regard history as both cultural (humans make history) and natural (humans
are natural beings and so what they make is the very process of nature
itself); language can be seen as both cultural (humans create sign systems
and continually change those systems) and natural (it appears and arises
naturally, having forms and effects of its own, independent of human making;
it is simply there like the atmosphere, etc); ditto, economic systems,
etc… Cf Heidegger’s thinking of the bridge and the temple at the hub of
the fourfold…

regards

michaelP

Posted on Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007 at 2:30 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback