 |
 |
Last post lacked 'quotation marks' and might confuse. This is better: On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 10:54:48 -0700, james lomax <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> 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?