Friday, January 14, 2011
Photographer on Heidegger’s Ancestral Realism.
What I think Heidegger was likely concerned with in 1931, to use language he himself used in The Essence of Truth that year, was whether nature could have as much beingness without man. Far from shrinking from the task of thinking through remote origins, a few years later Heidegger in discussing the origin of logos as statement explicitly points to presence emerging from nature:
This definition of being, like the idea, is foreshadowed in the physis. Only the power that emerges from itself can, as presence come to define itself as appearance and ready made subject.
Comment on it here.
That nature has a 'voice' of its own is one of the points that I understand Merleau-Ponty makes. It has been carried further and more graphically by Jane Bennett in her VIBRANT MATTER, which I confess I have not yet read—only her comments and reviews.

It seems to me to be coherent with MH's stress on things disclosing themselves to us. I assume that is what "seeing phenomenologically" amounts to. It sure also has power to understand the work of graphic artists.

I look forward to reading the source you identify as "Photographer," as soon as I can get to it.
Photographer slef identifies, with sub-title Πάντα ῥεῖ. The links are working for me - even with IE9. If the first link doesn't work, try the second.
That is a very challenging collection of quotes and comments. To say the least, the relationship of world to Dasein and vice versa still is far from clear to me.

I do like the quote on world and intraworldliness from Basic Problems. But I assume by p. 175, it is no longer the intro to S&Z.

I wonder how Meillassoux's issue differs simply from my capability of describing some of what can be found happening in another room in my home at this time or my guess about what likely took place in that room before I owned this home. We are historical, and my history includes all of that.

I enjoyed the closing quote used in this teaser. The joining of the definitions of being and idea as part and parcel of that which emerges, comes to a stand, and terminates is phusis, as I understand it. I have a problem with slef's assertion that world and phusis are cognates.
Eureka? I can see the difference between Dasein and world when I compare the world of my dreams (usually quite limited in size) with my being-in-the-world.

Those who assert that our world is completely dependent on our personal projections say what is true only of our dream world. Yes, there are surprises in my dream world but those tell me only about what is going on with me. The surprises in my being-in-the-world identify what is not my own projection. Both are kinds of worlds but different kinds of worlds.
Post a Comment

<< Home
For when Ereignis is not sufficient.

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

View mobile version