Ariosto wrote:
>From: df803@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Reply-To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Open Letter
>Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:14:07 -0400 (EDT)
>
>Everyone,
>
>Obviously the herd doesn't have an appreciation for what I write. Yet
>it is also the case that there are others, usually with a quieter
>voice, that are interested in something beyond mere Heideggerianism or
>normative philosophy not to mention more theological readings. You
>know, it is a distaste for what is often put in nationalist terms by
>Micheal Eldred first of all and which is being bundled up with a distate
>for postmodern thinking and more hybrid approaches. I know why they
>don't want me around. Inch by inch, I am always gaining ground. I
>don't make sense to everybody maybe but to some I certainly do. No
> way that the Heideggerians will go here, but certainly part of the
>issue is the relation between philosophy and litterature and art. I
>have already shown how the sublime for instance can be discussed in
>a multidisciplinary manner something else that the recent force of
>posts are not interested in. They are protecting territorial boundaries
>and pushing away possible crossings mostly by using labels like
>"American pragmatism" without realizing that this makes no sense. Also
>you merely project a Heideggerian reading onto what someone else is
>saying like Gary, who at least is lucid and seems to be able to teach.
>What is at stake in a territorial approach that fears hybridization?
>The strangeness and barbarity of the other perhaps who comes along
>with completely different assumptions of how to interpret texts who
>stutters in an odd idiom that rattles the ears?
>
>Ariosto
>
I, for one, very much appreciate your contributions to this list altho I do
not comment too much primarily because I am not in a discursive mode these
days and am trying to put into practice what I have learned from Heidegger
and other sources. I did not want to let your comment that you are pressing
the boundaries and that this is not resonating go uncommented upon. I am
not in a position to judge or evaluate other members of this list's
positions on whether or not they are protecting turf (honestly I haven't
been paying that much attention) but territoriality is endemic to academic
studies. This is perhaps a major problem with Heidegger's work in general.
Altho it pushes the boundaries of thought and doxology it does so within the
confines of the academy which, thru centuries of practice, has learned to
hide, ignore or otherwise not acknowledge the degree to which its discourse
is being shaped by economics, indirect and direct political influences and
administrative and institutional considerations. But if you remove
Heidegger from the academy do you not lose Heidegger? Where else would
Heidegger's reference to previous thinkers resonate as clearly? Probably
nowhere. I applaud your attempt to infuse this list with a bit of dithyramb
and lyric. Truly my heart goes out to Heidegger at times when I glimpse his
own unfulfilled desire to be a poet. If philosophy could become poetry what
would become of poetry? Would it become philosophy? Everyone wants to
cross lines but the disciplines, if they are to be that, resist amalgamation
and fear contamination. This is life. (Sorry to end on a platitude.)
[The sport of understanding is a game without rules, forever demanding that
we make them up as we go...
Chris Daly]
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
