The Thinker’s tautological Rose Garden*
June 28th, 2009, search relatedRelated posts :: The Thinker’s tautological Rose Garden* :: I yam what I yam because I yam :: Existential/Locative Sentences :: in the garden, the tree is
Tags: Gelassenheit
In a message dated 6/23/2009 6:48:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ronjelaco at mac.com writes:
The exquisite difficulty faced in Heidegger’s thinkerly walk is that he
seeks a thinking path that is not representational, that is not an act of
will; and the initial ‘problem’ is how to not even will the not-willing (how
to not represent the non-representational). Long’s walking helps us because
he accompanies his non-representational artworks with representational
souvenirs (comings with/before, underlying/accomanying). For the thinker
this might mean that the post-metaphysical thinking that Heidegger seeks in
the Conversation can be accomapanied by metaphysical (representational,
calculative) souvenirs; that the restitution of thinking when thinking is
brought into the region of the non-representational can be realised without
the total abandonment of the calculative (will). Although the Conversation
begins far from human habitation, it is nontheless walked/talked by human
walkers/talkers. For both Long and Heidegger the ‘aim’ with each footfall of
their paths is to listen sensitively to that which calls for each footfall,
the eros of walking and stalking and talking. The Conversation is enacted as
a conversation in the soul (Plato’s path in the Socratic dialogues) and thus
is just as solitary as Long’s long walks and traipses into the deserted (by
productive/calculative/mobilised civilisation).
Hi MichaelP;
Good to keep in mind that the “non-representational” is better addressed as
the irrepresentational or more to the Aristotelian point, and long before
Heidegger, the empty pleroma of pre-disposition to form otherwise known as
potentia. Potential is necessarilly empty except as the field of pre-formal
(proto-Morphe) predispositions. How can something that is nothing generate
something? Go ask Anaximander with what he called apieron (the boundless),
the something that is nothing that Aristotle called empty and formless
potentia. What Heridegger calls it, I have not the slightest idea except for his
walk circulus in probando. I realize, of course, how difficult it is for
thinking to free itself from its tautological rose garden except to first
generate *enantia*.
Bernard X Bovasso
