Sunday, May 27, 2007
Slavoj Žižek situates Heidegger's thinking of the open.
Heidegger was arguably the philosopher of the twentieth century (just as Hegel was the philosopher of the nineteenth): all subsequent philosophers (starting with Rudolph Carnap) have had the define themselves by drawing a line of demarcation, a critical distance towards him. The majority do not simply reject him; rather, they maintain an ambivalent relationship with him, acknowledging his breakthrough but claiming that he was not able to follow it to the end, since he remained stuck in some metaphysical presuppositions. For Marxists, for example, Heidegger was right, in Being and Time, to perform the turn from the exempted subject observing the world toward man as a being always-already thrown into the world, engaged in it; however, he was not able to locate human beings within the historical totality of their social practice; mutatis mutandis, the same goes for Levinas, Derrida, Rorty, some Wittgensteinians (Dreyfus), even Badiou.

Heidegger's greatest single achievement is the full elaboration of finitude, as a positive constituent of being-human--in this way, he accomplished the Kantian philosophical revolution, making it clear that finitude is the key to the transcendental dimension. A human being is always on the way toward itself, in becoming, thwarted, thrown-into a situation, primordially "passive," receptive, attuned, exposed to an overwhelming Thing; far from limiting him, this exposure is the very ground of the emergence of the universe of meaning, of the "worldliness" of man. It is only from within this finitude that entities appear to us as "intelligible," as forming part of a world, as included within a horizon of being--in short, that we take them "as" something, that they appear as something (that they appear tout court). To put it in Kantian terms: it is because of this finitude that "intellectual intuition" is impossible, that a human being can grasp things only within a gap between their mere being-there and the mode, the "as such," of their appearance; in short, that every understanding is a contingent "projecting" of a link over a gap, not a direct apprehension. The transcendental "condition of possibility" is thus the obverse of the condition of impossibility: the very impossibility for a human being to directly intuit reality, the very failure, falling-short of the goal, in what constitutes the openness of the world, of its horizon.

P. 273
Heidegger sucks!---as do all conventional philosophical perverts (both ancient & modern) with their left brained, fear saturated, meat-body based, thinkety thinkety, thinkety think, thunking.

All conventional philosophy (and theology) is an attempt to come to terms with the over-whelming fact of death.
But no philosophical speculation and musing ever comes anywhere near the Fear & Trembling at the core of the actively separative ego-"I"---In fact it deliberately prevents the necessary feeling sensitivity from occurring.

By contrast True Philosophy and Right Life only begins when the "meaning" and significance of death is fully felt and transcended so that one becomes centered in the Radiance of Being that is always already prior to the presumption of fearful separateness.

Where there is another, fear spontaneously arises.

Please check out these related references which are spoken/written from the "point of view" of Radiant Conscious Light.

1. www.dabase.org/broken.htm
2. www.kneeoflistening.com
3. www.adidabiennale.org
4. www.easydeathbook.com
5. http://global.adidam.org/books/eleutherios.html

When did you last read or hear a philosopher or theologian talk about Radiant Conscious Light?
Much as Heidegger may suck, turning your brain over to a cult sounds much worse, to me at least. Although I suppose thinking may be unbearably painful or scary for some. Elohim, elohim, Yog-sothoth Nafl'fthagn!
Post a Comment

<< Home
For when Ereignis is not sufficient.

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

View mobile version