Sunday, November 20, 2011
The fourfold is described in the Berkeley philosophy forum.
The notion of earth can be brought out in more detail when one contrasts it with sky, as Heidegger does. Heidegger almost never rattles off the four -earth, sky, divinities, mortals- merely in a list, but almost always puts things in pairs “earth and sky, divinities and mortals”. These two pairs are meant to be understood as productively oppositional in some sense. So let’s clarify sky, and see how the opposition between earth and sky might work. Sky, again, has a literal and metaphorical aspect. Literally, Heidegger’s “sky” embraces the physical sky as well as the natural phenomenon and objects (weather, clouds the stars, etc.) that go along with it. Metaphorically speaking, the sky again recalls the notions of concealment and unconcealment. The sky is a source of “glow” but also a source of “gloom.” It reveals our world, and at the same time conceals it with the darkness of night. If the earth is a spatial horizon, the sky might be considered our temporal one: the weather, years, seasons, all suggest time and temporal elements. Both earth and sky, both literally and as spatio-temporal horizons, show up in our practices. We plan our lives and projects in accordance with what the earth allows and with what time allots.
I understand Stambaugh to say that the elements of the Fourfold cannot be thought to exist separately or in pairs. Rather they are the "thing."

However, it's been a long time since I read MH's lecture by that name. I confess that I am as yet unable to see things in terms of the Fourfold.
That's probably one of those things. I you try to "see" things, you are still privileging presence, instead of letting things be. Not that I'm clear on this either, mind you.
The Dwelling essay seems intended for visionary architects and the like--a bit utopian IMO. For ordinary mortals..or street anarchists, not sure I understand the relevance. There are other elements one could mention--the Being of...baton-wielding pigs

(or, shall we say, property relations, capitalism itself--not suggesting a return to Marxy Marx however)
How this might work is that a poet would articulate a new relationship within the fourfold, a new understanding of being, or a "new god", that would replace the current dichotomy (cops v anarchists; 1 % v 99%). Sort of like a Hegelian resolving of the current thesis v antithesis with a new synthesis, only not simply moving to a new relationship between historical forces, or wills to power, but an ontological change that emphasizes new priorities and makes the old ones less releavant, like replacing the consumerism with a spiritual awakening.
Post a Comment

<< Home
For when Ereignis is not sufficient.

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

View mobile version