Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 17:38:14 +0100
Subject: Re: not much (2)


Allen writed:

>>And with that we are immediately in "Gelassenheit", where the Gegnet
>>is, at first, contrasted against horizontal-transcendental representing,
>>as the other side of it, which turns itself away from representation.
>>But reading on, Heidegger uses words like: unvordenkbar, not (un)
>>thinkable (denkbar) in advance  (vor) and "Das Unzulaenglich-
>>Unzugangbare" That which is not-accessible, in-adaquate,
>>in-commensurable.
>
>Rene,
>
>This sort of reminds me of a philosophical German version of 
>Kabbalah, but rather than letting speak only the words which are 
>found in the sacred text, language itself is left to speak in the 
>intra-(inner)-word possibilities that seem to respond to certain 
>thoughts.
> So   "denken" is opened up to speak its possibilities 
>through directed grammatic accretions.  "Unfordenkbar," if I'm 
>understanding its direction here, directs  a thinking which doesn't 
>depend on the presumption of the thinkable-in-advance, but rather 
>thinks the unthinkable-in-advance, thus "turning itself away from 
>representation."  The word becomes a way to do something by pointing 
>us in the right direction, or at least turning us away from the wrong 
>direction. A "formal indication" no?

Yes, seen from our position. But it could point to something, for which
there is not yet a word. (Heidegger said at last, that he didn't succeed
in finding the word, he has been looking for) Compare the inhibition,
with which at the end of Gelassenheit Herakleitos' 'angibasie'
is put forward. It can easily be translated: approaching. But not the
intersubjective, interlocutary meaning decides the relation to what is
object here -the unthinkable- but the hesitation, the alienation, which
makes the
interlocutors say almost at every page: 'I cannot figure this out' (ich kann
mir dabei nichts vorstellen), 'you must be drunk' etc. 

In the hesitation would be the Gelassenheit, not in the ready-made word. 
(the silence of the word)
And: it IS not there, it WOULD be. 

But more to Kaballah: one thing is that it can't be thought. Everyone can
let go his eyes over these pages and conclude: Heidegger says that thinking
has a limit and he substantiates even that (, the sucker): the
not-fore-thinkable,
the that-which-is-over-any-measure, or the Abgruendig-Sinnliche / the
abysmal-sensuous. (Did anyone NOT forget the last one?)

But it is not only not reachable, (the) one is already in it. But one does
not worry, one (incl. me) forgets and goes on living, even missing the
remembrance
of Nietzsche's buffalo, that at least still tries to forget.
 
The real problem seems to be to acknowledge, that something resists
our horizontal grip. Truth (openness), another word for the Gegnet, 
is independent of us. GA26: Things are, also without Dasein.
And but this independence is its relation to us. 
Near the end: "The independence of truth FROM man is patently
a relation TO the essence of man (Menschenwesen)"

Rene


---

You can feel it in your bones
You know a change is gonna come
A little change never done nobody no harm

Tony Joe White



 









-----------------------------------
drs. René de Bakker
Universiteitsbibliotheek Amsterdam
Afdeling Catalogisering 
tel. 020-5252309              


     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---