<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param><FontFamily><param>Arial</param>Hi Cat,
</color>Sorry to bother you again. I've been catching up on your posts to
the list and others responses. I saw your apology to Stuart and I
can sympathsize. I have had much the same problem with
Heidegger. My Dad was one of those soldiers that watched the
compulsory films played in German cinemas. He was a military
postman. People used to tell him it was British propoganda. But
still I can understand why they did not want to think it have
happened. It was just too much to think. My Uncle helped to
liberate one of the death camps (he was on TV recently) the
experience stayed with him all his life. It is difficult for me to
work out how much Heidegger's later philosophy is involved with
this context and/or how much it matters. Allen said something
in a recent post about 'facticity' quoting Heidegger's statement 'I
am a Christian theologian'. Allen said that the study of ontology,
according to Heidegger, had to be grounded in facticity. Facticity
wasn't a justification or even an expression. I wonder, Cat, if this
idea would help understanding Heidegger's thinking on the
questions being (or existence) or whether it helps any possible
understanding of his work in its later National Socialist context?
(Although I don't think I've really understood Allen's post) Allen
also gave some analogy to the Bible as the Word of God
existing only, as such, through the variety of its versions. That,
for me, seemed quite an interesting idea along with ideas about
understanding a philosopher's thinking requires some his 'faith' in
his factical ground (but I really will have to read Allen's post to
Kenneth again).
<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>But y</color>our simplification of language does make these questions
of [ ] (my own sign) easier to picture and [^] [<<] [>] and
[downward pointing chevron] seem fun to play with. I think you
already know that my interest is in where this thinking goes to
from Heidegger and how eventually it might reach French
feminism. So, if I could ask a question, would you imagine he^
and she^ as harmonious sounds in this language? Or have I
misunderstood? Could they be sounds perhaps that somehow
did not express the idea that she is some derivative of the Man
Or am I missing the point and being terribly tedious? Or would
they still have to be He [^] and He [downward pointing chevron]---
I've started to wonder - playing with your symbols - whether
Irigaray's idea of subjectivity could be written as I^I. Or even I^^I.
Would that be possible?
<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>I'm still catching up with your posts but thanks again for your novel chapters.
Andrea
>
>
> happy honeymooning :-)
>
> Catweasel: <<smile>
> (Yes, life is one long honeymoon for Clare and I - how the hell did you
> guess?
> Are you pyschic?<FontFamily><param>Times New Roman</param>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Hi Cat,
Sorry to bother you again - I've been catching up on your posts and othes responses. I saw your apology to Stuart and I can sympathsize. I have much the same problem with H. Although I think it has been discussed on the list on many occassions and that is probably why the subject irritates some
people. My Dad was one of those soldiers that watched the compulsory films played in German cinemas. People used to tell him it was British propoganda. But I can understand why ordinary people did not want to think that it could have happened. My Uncle was an 18 year old soldier that helped to
liberate one of the death camps (he was on TV recently) and the experience stayed with him all his life and damaged him mentally. It is difficult for me to work out how much, H's later philosophy is involved with this context and, maybe, how much it matters.
Allen said something in a recent post about 'facticity' quoting H's statement 'I am a Christian theologian'. Allen said, H. said, that the study of ontology had to be grounded in facticity. I wonder if this idea would help understanding H's thinking on the questions being (or ^ or existence)? He
also gave some analogy to the Bible as the Word of God existing only, as such, through the variety of its versions. That, for me, seemed quite an interesting idea.
You know this little 'is' button/bomb - The problem I have when I touch my own little 'is' button, is like Clare, no thoughts. If I don't have experience to draw on and I obviously have to ask someone more experienced (a philosopher maybe) for help; that H. had some questionable relations with
National Socialism must put a lot of people off and I'm not sure it doesn't put me off whether his language is difficult or not. Your simplification of language does make these questions of existence seem much easier to picture. [^] [<<] [>] and [downward pointing chevron] are terribly interesting
ideas for language. But would you imagine he^ and she^ as very different sounds? Or have I misunderstood, again? Could they be different sounds that somehow did not express the idea in language now that she is somehow some derivative of the original Adam. (Am I missing the point?) My interest is
in where thinking goes from H. and eventually how it reaches French feminism (I think you already know that). I've started to wonder playing with your symbols whether Irigaray's idea of subjectivity (or do I mean existence) could be written as I^I. It might even be I^^I. Would that be
possible?
I'm still catching up with your posts but thanks again for your novel.
Andrea
<nofill>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
