Friday, August 27, 2010
Theodore Kisiel responds to his overwrought critics.
By way of a definitive clarification, my complaint is not against enownment as one possible translation of Ereignis. I have accepted it as such ever since Albert Hofstadter coined it in 1976, as is evident from my review. My plaint is rather aimed at the proliferation of arbitrary encoinages of esoteric en-words that follow in its wake, whose ludicrous excesses come to roost in monstrously opaque sentences like the following:
Time-space is the enowned encleavage of the turning trajectories of enowning, of the turning between belongingness and the call, between abandonment by being and enbeckoning (the enquivering of the resonance of be-ing itself!) (GA65 372/260).
Pray tell, what and where is the “disclosive power” of presumably “being-historical” words like “enquivering, enbeckoning, encleavage” in this context?
Entirely entertaining.
Post a Comment

<< Home
For when Ereignis is not sufficient.

Appropriation appropriates! Send your appropriations to enowning at gmail.com.

View mobile version