Heidegger

Howdy Michael, did MichaelE send this notice to the list at large?

> —–Original Message—–
> From: heidegger-bounces at an-archos.com [mailto:heidegger-bounces@an-
>archos.com] On Behalf Of michaelP
> Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 8:47 AM
> To: heidegger at an-archos.com
> Subject: Re: Recent paper at 27th North Texas Heidegger Symposium (part
> one)
>
> MichaelE grants us this:
>
> > Cologne 30-Apr-2009
> >
> > For those who would like to read what I presented at a recent
> symposion,
> > here it is:
> >
> > ‘Appraising Heidegger’s Interpretations of Movement and Time’
> > http://www.arte-fact.org/untpltcl/mvmnti…
> >
> > Abstract:
> > The early Heidegger mines the wealth to be found in Aristotle’s
> thinking
> > on movement and time and, with Husserl’s aid, regains a
> > phenomenologically more adequate ontology of time as three-
> dimensional,
> > ecstatic time. He thus overcomes the inadequacy of Aristotle’s
> > conception of time as the counting number abstracted from movement
> which
> > dovetails ultimately with the Cartesian cast of time as a linear,
> > continuous variable so amenable to the modern sciences. The later
> > Heidegger reiterates the three-dimensionality of time, but this
> > conception remains divorced from the movement of social interplay
> > exemplified by the gainful capitalist power play of value.
>
> Hi Michael, thanks for the paper. In the following I am trying to make
> notes
> on a first reading; thus the following is speckled with quotes from
> your
> paper. Furthermore, I mean to do this is digestible steps, thus this is
> the
> starter, part one.
>
> “Although we are entirely familiar with the phenomenon of movement,
> Aristotle claims that it remains hidden to us. This is the classic
> situation
> of philosophical thinking: it starts with what is most familiar, and
> thus in
> some sense known, in order then to show that we have always already
> skipped
> over the simplest of questions and appeased the understanding with only
> apparently adequate notions that take the phenomenon in question for
> granted.”
>
> Michael, this is superficially similar to that somewhat “snotty
> modernity”’s
> mistranslation of Heraclitus’ saying ‘nature loves to hide’ (when
> seemingly
> for us ’scientific’ moderns it doesn’t). I have dealt with this
> mistranslation several times on this here list in order to render it
> somewhat differently. But the living and persistent power of genuine
> philosophical thinking to provoke a question out of the apparent and
> smug
> ways of so-called commonsense is still scandalously thrilling.
>
> The business of the taken-for-granted also points to the very granting
> of
> be-ing itself and thus is marbled in that very smug commonsense (but
> without
> such commonsense sensing it). Or, commonsense provides the very clues
> to
> be-ing… but not in *its* pronouncements.
>
>
> “Thus does Aristotle come to his first definition of the being of
> movement.
> It is the presence of the potential being as such, stretching itself
> toward
> its finished presence, and thus a peculiar twofold presence of both
> presence
> and absence in which the potential being is on its way to becoming
> other
> than it is, attaining a finished state in which the movement will come
> into
> its end.”
>
> This could provide a nice summary of Heidegger’s path of thinking in
> the
> face of and within (and the attempt to go with-out) the inheritance of
> metaphysics: always on-the-way to its other (the post- via and versus
> the
> pre-); the entire vault tightroped across(ing) the abyss/chasm of
> metaphysicspost-metaphysics; an entwining of the multiple fates of
> western thinking. This stretching forward and back (this eros) brings
> metaphysics to its end, its post, its last post (entrance bugling),
> which
> like the last man lasts and laughs longest.
>
> “Aristotle raises the aporia that only the now is, so that time
> consists
> predominantly of that which is not, namely, the no-longer and the not-
> yet.
> He lets this aporia stand, however.”
>
> Is this where Parmenides and Zeno poke in? If a being is half-way (to
> an
> other) then it is nothing; movement can not be if it can be divided
> (like
> numbers)… continuity is at stake in the being of (rational) numbers.
>
> “Time is counted by saying ‘now’ at least twice in succession, thus
> marking
> an earlier and a later. This raises the aporia in the nature of numbers
> as
> either countable and discrete or as endlessly divisible and continuous,
> an
> aporia which was solved in mathematics as late as the nineteenth
> century
> with the concept of mathematical limit (Cauchy, Weierstrass) which
> allowed
> the infinitesimally small to be coherently calculated without assuming
> the
> infinitesimals as infinitely small magnitudes smaller than any real
> number.
> Infinitesimals can be dealt with as the limits of countable, infinite
> sequences of rational numbers, thus bringing countability and
> continuity
> together. The mathematical concept of limit says roughly that by
> counting
> you can get as close as you like without actually getting there, thus,
> once
> again a twofold of both presence and absence.”
>
> The problem of counting (discrete, quantal) and the continuum
> (continuous)
> that is ’solved’ in the infinitesimal calculus) still strikes me as
> mysterious: the limit of a series (such as) 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 +
> …
> 1/2(to the power n, where n tends to infinity) is the real number 1,
> but
> that real number 1 is not a member of the series as such. There is
> thus, for
> me, an abyssal gap between the series (countable stepwise) and its
> limit,
> which although can be made as small as one likes quantitatively, is
> nonetheless an abyss. The successful trick of modern mathematics is to
> be
> oblivious to this extraordinary abyss lying at the very basis of the
> calculus for the sake of its extraordinary practical productivity. Zeno
> had
> a point
>
> That’s it for part 1. More later.
>
> regards
>
> michaelP
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> heidegger mailing list
> heidegger at an-archos.com
> http://an-archos.com/mailman/listinfo/he…
> http://heidegger.an-archos.com/

Posted on Sunday, May 10th, 2009 at 6:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback