Re: OntologicalDifference arp

> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ariosto schreef:
> 
> >The image or aspect being projected by the imagination is like a Greek
> >axiom and indicates that which is without a why, being never the
> >figuring out of cause by calculative thinking;--an image is a symbol
> >which brings opposites together, is a conflicting and tensive
> >contradiction that drives, provokes thinking, a hard kernel of a traumatic
> >Real, the empty heart of semantic innovation. Now I'm going gnomic
> >again...oops.
> 
> Hello Ariosto, hey,
> 
> Some of this strikes my unschooled ear as a bit of florid rhapsodic
> sophisticism, tho I _really_ liked it. 

 Well, I try to make it fun for everybody no matter what. There is
always the play of showing and hiding and elliptical references. I
assumed that to some the reference to _The Cherubic Wanderer_ by
Angelus Silesius was obvious. There is commentaries by Derrida and
Blanchot too that I  vaguely remember. There is Ricouer's
interpretation of a symbol which I allowed to slip towards Zizek's
interpretation of Lacan's Real.  I could spend days unpacking it for
you but I take it all this bullshit and name dropping doesn't matter to
you. You'll find more interesting that in the background of these
lectures  are Scopenhauer's reading of the principle of sufficient
reason and Nietzsche's "error of false causality",  in part talked
about in the _Twilight of the Idols_ to Derrida, Blanchot, and
Heidegger I just added an ancient Greek skeptical reading, that was the
reference to Pyrroh which Nietzsche speaks well off since he was a
skeptic in my eyes. Anyway, you should read them, the lectures _The
Principle of Reason_, they are a great intro to how Heidegger is
thinking. It helps to read Heidegger you know. I could even help you if
you want if you seriously  take up some readings. I have tons of
references.

In Steven's Snow Man btw, there is a great description of the sort of
thinking-looking I was just refering to in my last post: "For the
listener, who listens in the snow,/And, nothing himself, beholds/
Nothing that is not  there and the nothing that is." (pg. 9 Collected
Works). There was a time I was totally captivated by his poems.

Hasta la vista,
Ariosto



>But there is certainly a "why" to an
> axiom, whether the greeks could see it or not. Axioms are merely symbolic
> descriptives of the (I shudder to use the word) "natural" functionings of
> primordial calculation, used either in grammatical or mathematical
> axiomatics and which are both "sayings". Neither of these "do" anything,
> contrare the married analytics, they only measure:  what actions can be
> done, what action is being done, or what action has already been done.
> Poetry, philosophy, meditation, calculus, etc. are all actions and all are
> included!
> 
> All actions (flows) of force in time, all of the three H's works, all are
> phenomena of calculations. All of the greeks works and modern greekwerkes
> are calculations. Meditation, like all poetry, is a calculation.
> Specifically, it is a calculated "act" of attempting to break through the
> calculative into dreams that _seem_ uncalculated. But when you get to these
> dreams phenomenally, you find, if you're awake, that the dream is nothing
> but calculated neuron-firings. We say these firings are random, but
> "random", as a concept, is itself limited here for us. Using your calc
> style to say that maybe when we reach the great "reason" in the sky, this
> concept will reveal itself as less than it is by suddenly becoming more
> than it is, ay? (and all reason is calculation)
> 
> The problem, from my perspective, is that you like everyone else here do
> not read the spaces between the calculating words of Heidegger, no doubt
> thinking they are not important in themselves to be thought. What must be
> thought, you think, are only those squiggles appearing between them which
> calculate out, besides a vast corpus of critical work, also many a dream, a
> vaporous vision that there is something outside the calculative, something
> that is non-calculative. At least all this according to my calculations
> seems to be the case. Obviously, I _often_ mis-calculate (once quite
> recently).
> 
> Reading these spaces carefully is the supreme corrective to _all_ truth
> sayers. Not as refutations, that's another matter, but for situating these
> sayings at the "where" they are sitting. A "place" (stuart) in which, among
> other things, N's "find the force" has room to work its pharmakon
> consciously, or visibly, "in view of", at the site of sight, seeing the
> saying through a fresh synaptic seeing, not just a similar synaptic saying.
> 
> As to "calculation" itself, this is one of those trump concepts, like
> "perspective". You can at will perspect that perspection is not universal,
> but that is only your perspective, as just so too you can always calculate
> that calculation is not universal, but that too is only one more
> calculation. And even if the sum of this particular calculation is
> calculated by you to be "correct", well, dream on compadre. You just
> haven't grasped Will to Power (nor have I yet in all its aspects, but on
> this part I think/reason/calculate I'm rite).
> 
> Even metaphysical poetry is a calculative driven "saying", an action aimed
> toward gaining a perspective on the mysteriousness of mystery inside the
> mystery of the mystery.  On the "Nothing that is not there and the nothing
> that is", to quote you quoting Wallace Stevens snowman.
> 
> regarde,
> - k
> 
> And, nothing himself, beholds Nothing that is not there and the nothing
> that is. (p. 9 _The Complete Poems_)
> 
> Mr sheetz is rite about poetry, what enormous lucidity in ponders on the
> mysterious "all" had to be present in mind in order for this line to
> deliver itself!
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> 
> 



-- 
                               
        


     --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---