Thursday, August 30, 2007
In-der-Blog-sein
The Joyful Knowning explains that thing-less something.
The Joyful Knowning explains that thing-less something.
Unconcealment, as an openness to being considered without reference to beings, comes about to reveal Being because of Being, but without residing in Being. Thus something must give Being through unconcealment. This “something,” which, because it gives Being, cannot be either Being or a being, is Ereignis. The thinking of Ereignis is the thinking of how Being can be unconcealed by unconcealment when unconcealment cannot be in or even by Being and Being itself cannot be.¶ 11:53 PM
Comments:
<< Home
Thank you for this. I also sent you an e-mail.
I am feeling a little edgy tonight having watched Lynch's "Fire Walk With Me". But to use your formulation of the problem, Athens v Jerusalem—I opted for Rome v Judea—David in my view is firmly on the side of Athens. He is the Athens within Jerusalem, that is, the USA.
We have much to share, or perhaps not that much, since we think alike it looks like. Still I do recommend my own blogpage http://thomasromer.blogspot.com if only because it contains a few more disclosures through the Ereignis thinking you quoted here. In particular my dialogue Lathoron, last paragraph, and a confrontation with the old man, Nietzsche.
A decisive step was reached with the thought on Inhabitation, which I think corresponds to the thinking Heidegger envisaged as that which would succeed his, viz. pre-socratic in feel if not in style, where poetic creation and philosophy become one and emphasis on the concept "world". Of course the larger impact is the necessity as I see it of a new religion, which I rather lazily called Ereignis for that matter, a religion for the few, that is, for the few warriors there are left in the world ("without us there is no world"). "Only a god can save us"—implied, us warriors. As Nietzsche had found out : "Carefree, mocking, violent—thus wisdom wants us. She is a woman, she only ever loves a warrior."
The god by the way is Iragmo. The etymology speaks for itself. A 1944 text by Heidegger noted from a Nietzschean aphorism that without a god man is deprived of a world. He therefore becomes animal in the sense of being poor-in-world. It is a sign of the truth of this statement that, before knowing of it, I had contemporaneously conveived of both the thought on inhabitation and the god's name which came to me whilst brooding in the restaurant I worked in this summer.
I am feeling a little edgy tonight having watched Lynch's "Fire Walk With Me". But to use your formulation of the problem, Athens v Jerusalem—I opted for Rome v Judea—David in my view is firmly on the side of Athens. He is the Athens within Jerusalem, that is, the USA.
We have much to share, or perhaps not that much, since we think alike it looks like. Still I do recommend my own blogpage http://thomasromer.blogspot.com if only because it contains a few more disclosures through the Ereignis thinking you quoted here. In particular my dialogue Lathoron, last paragraph, and a confrontation with the old man, Nietzsche.
A decisive step was reached with the thought on Inhabitation, which I think corresponds to the thinking Heidegger envisaged as that which would succeed his, viz. pre-socratic in feel if not in style, where poetic creation and philosophy become one and emphasis on the concept "world". Of course the larger impact is the necessity as I see it of a new religion, which I rather lazily called Ereignis for that matter, a religion for the few, that is, for the few warriors there are left in the world ("without us there is no world"). "Only a god can save us"—implied, us warriors. As Nietzsche had found out : "Carefree, mocking, violent—thus wisdom wants us. She is a woman, she only ever loves a warrior."
The god by the way is Iragmo. The etymology speaks for itself. A 1944 text by Heidegger noted from a Nietzschean aphorism that without a god man is deprived of a world. He therefore becomes animal in the sense of being poor-in-world. It is a sign of the truth of this statement that, before knowing of it, I had contemporaneously conveived of both the thought on inhabitation and the god's name which came to me whilst brooding in the restaurant I worked in this summer.
I view Fire Walk With Me as two act. In the first the FBI works on developing its understanding of the world. In the second, Laura's world oscillates between the good and the bad. Because of Bob, she self-identifies with the bad, and seeks a bad world, but she saves Donna from it. For ethical reasons, to help her friend, or to keep a flame of the good burning in Donna's innocence? What's good for Laura herself is in the artificial white powder, but her long suffering mother envisions the good in a white horse. The archetype of the agathon? In the end, freed from worldly desires in the halfway house of the red room, the good appears as an angel--beyond the dialectic of Athens and Jerusalem, its synthesis Rome.
Post a Comment
<< Home
