 |
 |
> From: Joseph Billings > <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: heidegger and language and running > naked > > The fascinating thing about Heidegger is that once > you > interpret his opening move in Being and Time as a > reversal > of the traditional way of asking about being, that > is, > instead of asking "from 'what' does being arise?" > (or how > do we explain being (or any phenomenon)in terms of > things?) > we might ask, "what does being mean?" and then put > off the > question of "what things are?" --which otherwise > forces us > to assume and apply a very loaded metaphysics-- then > his > language becomes very transparent. His terms become > precise, informative, and surgical. And his way of > doing > things also helps to exemplify a view that I have > long > held, but could never quite articulate, that > philosophy is > an art, a practice, as much as an intellectual > enterprise. Well yes, maybe. But on matters of 'being', non-being etc. and related metaphysics, I see very little insight in Western thought. Eastern thought has a more sophisticated and coherent tradition (Vedanta, Buddhism etc.)which addresses these kind of questions as they ultimately only can be: not as endless convoluted speculation - elegant or otherwise - but as something that either 'is' or 'isn't'. That is, as a process of phenomenological discovery which begins and ends with ONESELF. As opposed to a widely prevalent trend, where logical construction is assumed to be/regarded as equivalent to 'the thing itself'. Which it isn't. Sometimes, elegant philosophical construction - and the convoluted lengths it goes to - is ultimately no more than a mind game. It may be good exercise, but you are on a stationary exercise bicycle rather than a bicycle on the road that actually takes you somewhere. > make me want to run naked through the streets of > NYC > with an 8mm black and white loaded camera until I > drop! Heh. Well there must be other film makers who would be interested in recording that ;-) > In my view, H is simply describing the indescribable > mysterious present = > in necessarily obtuse/new/convoluted language. Why is it *necessary*? I suspect the most profound understanding of 'being' etc. is profoundly simple, based on a recognition of the fact that mentation cannot grasp it. In other words, you accept that there is nothing to be achieved by any attempt at mental apprehension. Here it is not so much determining > meaning by a = > Wittgensteinian analysis of use of language as a > tool but finding = > meaning in a clearing of mind through H's strange > set of goggles. I regard this kind of question very simply: language is not the 'thing itself'. Therefore, there is no point in constructing impressive or elegant 'thought structures' because however much you do it, you are still (see above) on a stationary bicycle. Since no language cannot adequately > deal with the mystery > of being his convoluted striving accentuates and > brings to the foreground > the precarious the human condition. Yes, H is a > never ending adventure. Far out. But does he give any answers? Are *his* answers the same as yours? And if he doesn't, 'where' or 'how' can you find the answers? And what form can they take, if we accept the limitations of mentation? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com