Heidegger

>>says Allen (I think) very recently:
>>
>>> Hi Bernard,
>>>
>>> The crucial matter here is how you take Heidegger’s notion of possibility.
>>> For Heidegger, Dasein IS possibility; that is, possibility is the very
being
>>of Dasein. As such Dasein’s being is always yet to be accomplished. At
>>the same time, it is already there

moi:

>>Thus, Allen, dasein is accomplishing, needs to be accomplished
>>at/in-order-to-be accomplishing; rather similar to Nietzsche’s will-to-power
>>(needing to be installed securely in order to project/empower/over-power its
>>existing power projection (onto the chaos that is the real world…); both
>>formulations excitingly sound like creation ex nihilo (the world continually
>>giving birth to itself from nothing but, and dasein is at the very hub/but
>>of that — both as birth and as nothing).

says Allen:

> Hi Michael,
>
> Interesting aside. There is no creatio ex nihilo in the Hebrew.
> Rather than “In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth. . .,” a
> more accurate translation of the Hebrew (based on the formulation of
> the beginning in cognate Akkadian creation stories as well as a more
> rigorous and knowing understanding of the first word “Breshith) would
> be, “When God began to create heaven and earth, the earth BEING
> unformed and void. . .God said, “let there be light.’” So what we
> have here is a phenomenological version of the beginning, God’s
> creation coming in the midst of the being of nothing, “tohu
> va’vohu,” non-being.

Yes Allen, interesting and arresting. Unformed and void, the world comes to
be, be-comes, through it being lit up, through visibility, which is the
metaphor for the Good (the Sun) in Plato, such visibility being understood
as intellibility, logos. Is this then the advent of language? With the light
of the logos, what is unformed and void be-comes formed and filled (with
beings). Thingly discernment: a world.

> Does it make sense to say that nothing is not
> static, but rather in motion as the being(non-being) that it is?
> Perhaps a stretch, but your suggested(to me, not necessarily what you
> intended) analogy to the already having begun beginning of Dasein as
> possibility is striking, including the supple ambiguity of das Nichts
> giving rise to Dasein’s anxiety, its tie to the already having begun,
> but-shrouded- in -darkness beginning of its being as non-being.

Perhaps non-being always accompanies be-ing in the same sense that truth is
always accompanied by error (for Nietzsche, and perhaps for Heidegger too,
truth is a certain kind or limit of errance, this difference propelling the
very history of thinking and thus be-ing). Thus, with the original genesis
story, in all be-ing there is (?) the very arche of be-ing in non-be-ing, a
ghostly haunting of be-ing, in which difference qua difference
be-ing/non-be-ing) is (?) motion (history, time)? Perhaps both Parmenides
and Plato’s Parmenides could attest to something like this?

> There are no doubt some errors in the above chain. It’s too rushed
> and protracted.

…. a mad-rush of the midrash

> But I hope the playing out of the analogy is
> suggestive.

Sure.

regards

michaelP

>
> Regards,
>
> Allen
>
>
>
> Allen

Posted on Sunday, January 31st, 2010 at 7:00 am
rss 2.0 | trackback