RE: Heidegger speaks: being creased

+ From: "Bob Guevara" <guevara@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+ Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 06:54:50 -0700

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C24B3B.278F1F80
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"The cleavage is the unfolding unto itself of the intimacy of be-ing. .
." (CP,172.27). Mae West could not have said it better.

=85.

Get ready for such gems as this definition of Denken: "Thinking no
longer appears as a faculty of the mind but as the mystery through which
the sway of being sways as the counter-sway of a finite projection and a
finite but always already on-going and self-sustaining forth-throw" (in
Babich, 144.29-32).

=20

From: 1. Sister Constantia=92s exam, A Paradigm Shift in Heidegger
Research [Thomas Sheehan Stanford University]

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/relstud/faculty/pdf/parad.pdf

=20

Hi Michael,

=20

I enjoyed your mail below, Thank you.=20

=20

However, in reading Professor Sheehan=92s commentary [see above], I=92m =
left
wondering about English translations of Heidegger. In this case: Emad's
and Maly's Beitr=E4ge zur Philosophie

=20

As someone who has no formal training in philosophy and who is pretty
much left with English translations and commentaries on Heidegger=92s
thought =85. Could you speak to Sheehan=92s paper and what he has to say
about the state of affairs of those who have only the =93English
Heidegger=94 at their disposal?

=20

BTW---since I=92m very interested in the possibility of another origin
[new beginning] and the necessary tradition that it would entail
[chicken or the egg?], how do you see =93joining Heidegger=94 in his =
thought
_happening_ in the widespread fashion that would seem to be required?

=20

TIA,

Bob

=20

=20

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
michaelP
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 11:29 AM
To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Heidegger speaks: being creased

=20

today I found this fragment of a modern thinkerly discourse; it suddenly

appeared on my screen, and it set me to thinking concerning its
utterance
and what it might be pointing to; it takes the form of a short
mid-conversational dialogue, and, this has set me to being playful with
language, and surely that's OK, it is my birthright to be able to play
with
and en-joy language (I mean, it might just play with me too) without
being oh so careful of correct grammar and hard&fast punk.tuation:-* is
it not!

To the fragments themselves:

"Of course we are ARE the "living being which congregates ( great
word!). . . ," but as Heidegger says of being-with, it (being-with)
is to be understood existentially, not categorically!

With this distinction I see Heidegger insisting on a fold in being."

Ah, the creases, the folds, the cleavages: regions of excitement, of
fecundity, of the erotic. I want to crease up, fold in, this
'being-with' to: 'with-being' --> rising curve, a vaulting, a ridge;
with 'with' at the apex, and 'being' each side in support, holding the
'with' up in an ascending, and allowing it to descend down again to the
ground; an arch. This movement might prove giddying; perhaps we might
make this crease-up a chiasmus and utter "being-with is with-being" and
it's helter-skelter time again, this trajectory introduced by the
creasing now turns round upon itself, drawing energy from the folding
(being) and the two hyphens; and: are not hyphens perfect linguistic
play-things, things that play with and in language? They bring, they
give a certain 'charge' to a word; the word be-comes magnetised, a field
of force. Let us look a little more closely.

Hyphen is a Greek compound word formed from hyp {under} and hen {one}
(roughly); thus one could say that the hyphen brings together what is
apart, separate words, under one, i.e., as in one word [just in case
someone might be thinking only along the lines of hyphenation at the
ends of lines of text in a fully justified section or paragraph,
although this employment of hyphenation is based upon the one I am
remarking upon, it is not the instance of most or prior importance, OK].
Whilst such a hyphenation that makes a juncture, a fit, an articulation
of one out of many, might be seen in synthetic terms, i.e., the slightly
hesitant beginnings prior to a new un-hyphenated word (before that word
becomes 'accepted' as a single word rather than a slightly artificial
amalgam of others or of prefixes/suffixes and others), say, like
"e-mail" which is in the process of becoming simply "email"; my main
interest, here is in the loosening and dissolution of a word into a
hyphenated articulation. Hyphens can hold apart in splendid balance of
unity just by the device of that little dash; in so doing, collecting in
difference, in apartness, the hyphen can show us something of how the
un-hyphenated word came to be; it is deconstructing as it constructs.
Let us take the example of the word "hyphen" itself: hyphenate it and we
get -- "hyp-hen" -- a bringing-together of "under" and "one" under one;
the hyp-hen-ating shows how the separateness of "under" and "one" came
together in a unity of one word "hyphen" {in a silly analogy that
utilises my metaphor of 'charge' in a more literal manner, we could
think of the atom of hydrogen, one electron so-called {!} 'orbiting'
about a proton; these two particles would annihilate each other if
brought together under other circumstances than that of the atomic
system that keeps them together and apart simultaneously, collected in
difference, harmony through strife, etc}. Deliberate analytic
hyphenation can reveal something of the being of language and its words;
for example: the difference between "being" and "be-ing" is that the
hyphenated word reveals the suffix "ing" which suggests a more verbal
inclination than a nominal one, suggests a process or action...

OK, back to the fragment: we have the hyphenated "being-with" and in my
chiasmatic creasing turn "with-being"; what is this hyphenation doing?
In what way is this different to " being with" and could it ever become
"beingwith"? Let us just consider the first question (especially
considering that German words are commonly formed from concatenations
without hyphens of other whole words, and this very term is presumably a
translation of "mitsein"): if we say "I like being with." we would
normally expect to hear what it is I like being with, the sentence seems
incomplete, missing an object (one I like being with); whereas if we say
"I like being-with." then it seems to suggest that being-with is what I
like without qualification of what things I like being with, it suggests
that being-with is the very thing I like (in itself, if you like...);
thus being-with is here seen as a being of its own and not just a
qualification of some other being (that I like being with); it's saying
"being with" in one breath, so to speak.

In the fragment, the first interlocutor says that the being of 'us' is a
"congregating" which is "being-with" which is to be seen "existentially"
not "categorically". Very roughly speaking (and this is a first
interpretation of this newly found fragment, in a mad-rush midrash
version :-)), this first interlocutor is saying to us that the
congregating being-with should not be seen so much as a type of thing or
object of our concern (a being), although it can be, but instead as a
way of conducting ourselves, as a mode of being, as a way of seeing and
showing things (be-ing). The second interlocutor replies with an
additional qualification that might suggest that the uttered distinction
between a being (being-with as categorical) and be-ing (being-with as
existential) is a fold/crease/cleavage in be-ing itself; furthermore, it
follows that the categorical being-with is one possibility of the
existential being-with since it is but part of the same folded/creased
cloth as existential being-with, be-ing being the cloth itself that can
be creased.

So what of the crease? And my chiasmatic in-crease to the creasing of
be-ing and being-with?

Part two of this thrilling find and analysis will be with us shortly;
don't go away, watch this space.

excitedly and creased-up as hell

michaelP=20

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C24B3B.278F1F80
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>

<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">

<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<title>Heidegger speaks: being creased</title>

<style>

</style>

</head>

<body bgcolor=3Daqua lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>

<div class=3DSection1>

"The =
cleavage is the
unfolding unto itself of the intimacy of be-ing. . ." (CP,172.27). =
Mae
West could not have said it better.

   =
….

Get ready for =
such gems
as this definition of Denken:
"Thinking no longer appears as a faculty of the mind but as the =
mystery
through which the sway of being sways as the counter-sway of a finite
projection and a finite but always already on-going and self-sustaining
forth-throw" (in Babich, 144.29-32).

 

From: 1. =
Sister
Constantia’s exam, A Paradigm Shift in Heidegger =
Research
[Thomas Sheehan Stanford University]

       <a =
href=3D"http://www.stanford.edu/dept/relstud/faculty/pdf/parad.pdf";>http:=
//www.stanford.edu/dept/relstud/faculty/pdf/parad.pdf</a></=
p>

 

Hi Michael,

 

I enjoyed your mail below, =
Thank
you. 

 

However, in reading =
Professor
Sheehan’s commentary [see above], I’m left wondering about =
English
translations of Heidegger. In this case: Emad's and Maly's =
Beitr=E4ge =
zur
Philosophie

 

As someone who has no formal training in philosophy =
and who
is pretty much left with English translations and commentaries on
Heidegger’s thought …. Could you speak to Sheehan’s =
paper and
what he has to say about the state of affairs of those who have only the
“English Heidegger” at their disposal?

 

BTW---since I’m very interested in the =
possibility of
another origin [new beginning] and the necessary tradition that it would =
entail
[chicken or the egg?], how do you see “joining Heidegger” in =
his
thought _happening_ in =
the
widespread fashion that would seem to be required?

 

TIA,

Bob

 

 

<div style=3D'border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in =
0in 4.0pt'>

-----Original Message----- 
From:
owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of michaelP 
Sent: Thursday, August =
22, 2002
11:29 AM 
To:
heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: Heidegger =
speaks: being
creased

 

today I found this fragment of a =
modern
thinkerly discourse; it suddenly 
appeared on my screen, and it set me to thinking concerning its =
utterance 
and what it might be pointing to; it takes the form of a short 
mid-conversational dialogue, and, this has set me to being playful =
with 
language, and surely that's OK, it is my birthright to be able to play =
with 
and en-joy language (I mean, it might just play with me too) without =
being oh
so careful of correct grammar and hard&fast punk.tuation:-* is it =
not! 
 
To the fragments themselves: 
 
"Of course we are =
 ARE the
"living being which congregates ( great 
word!). . . ," but as Heidegger says of being-with,  it =
(being-with) 
is to be understood existentially, not categorically! 
 
With this distinction I =
see
Heidegger insisting on a fold in being." 
 
Ah, the creases, the =
folds, the
cleavages: regions of excitement, of 
fecundity, of the erotic. I want to crease up, fold in, this =
'being-with' to:
'with-being' --> rising curve, a vaulting, a ridge; with 'with' at =
the apex,
and 'being' each side in support, holding the 'with' up in an ascending, =
and
allowing it to descend down again to the ground; an arch. This movement =
might
prove giddying; perhaps we might make this crease-up a chiasmus and =
utter
"being-with is with-being" and it's helter-skelter time again, =
this
trajectory introduced by the creasing now turns round upon itself, =
drawing
energy from =
the folding
(being) and the two hyphens; and: are not hyphens perfect linguistic
play-things, things that play with and in language? They bring, they =
give a
certain 'charge' to a word; the word be-comes magnetised, a field of =
force. Let
us look a little more closely. 
 
Hyphen is =
a Greek compound word formed =
from hyp
{under} and hen {one} (roughly); thus one could say that the hyphen =
brings
together what is apart, separate words, under one, i.e., as in one word =
[just
in case someone might be thinking only along the lines of hyphenation at =
the
ends of lines of text in a fully justified section or paragraph, =
although this
employment of hyphenation is based upon the one I am remarking upon, it =
is not
the instance of most or prior importance, OK]. Whilst such a hyphenation =
that
makes a juncture, a fit, an articulation of one out of many, might be =
seen in
synthetic terms, i.e., the slightly hesitant beginnings prior to a new
un-hyphenated word (before that word becomes 'accepted' as a single word =
rather
than a slightly artificial amalgam of others or of prefixes/suffixes and
others), say, like "e-mail" which is in the process of =
becoming
simply "email"; my main interest, here is in the loosening and
dissolution of a word into a hyphenated articulation. =
Hyphens can hold apart in =
splendid balance
of unity just by the device of that little dash; in so doing, collecting =
in
difference, in apartness, the hyphen can show us something of how the
un-hyphenated word came to be; it is deconstructing as it constructs. =
Let us
take the example of the word "hyphen" itself: hyphenate it and =
we get
-- "hyp-hen" -- a bringing-together of "under" and
"one" under one; the hyp-hen-ating shows how the separateness =
of
"under" and "one" came together in a unity of one =
word
"hyphen" {in a silly analogy that utilises my metaphor of =
'charge' in
a more literal manner, we could think of the atom of hydrogen, one =
electron
so-called {!} 'orbiting' about a proton; these two particles would =
annihilate
each other if brought together under other circumstances than that of =
the
atomic system that keeps them together and apart simultaneously, =
collected in
difference, harmony through strife, etc}. Deliberate analytic =
hyphenation can
reveal something of the being of language and its words; for example: =
the
difference between "being" and "be-ing" is that the
hyphenated word reveals the suffix "ing" which suggests a more =
verbal
inclination than a nominal one, suggests a process or action... 
 
OK, back to the fragment: we have the hyphenated "being-with" =
and in
my chiasmatic creasing turn "with-being"; what is this =
hyphenation
doing? In what way is this different to " being with" and =
could it
ever become "beingwith"? Let us just consider the first =
question
(especially considering that German words are commonly formed from
concatenations without hyphens of other whole words, and this very term =
is
presumably a translation of "mitsein"): if we say "I like =
being
with." we would normally expect to hear what it is I like being =
with, the
sentence seems incomplete, missing an object (one I like being with); =
whereas
if we say "I like being-with." then it seems to suggest that =
being-with
is what I like without qualification of what things I like being with, =
it
suggests that being-with is the very thing I like (in itself, if you =
like...);
thus being-with is here seen as a being of its own and not just a =
qualification
of some other being (that I like being with); it's saying "being
with" in one breath, so to speak. 
 
In the fragment, the first interlocutor says that the being of 'us' is a
"congregating" which is "being-with" which is to be =
seen
"existentially" not "categorically". Very roughly =
speaking
(and this is a first interpretation of this newly found fragment, in a =
mad-rush
midrash version :-)), this first interlocutor is saying to us that the
congregating being-with should not be seen so much as a type of thing or =
object
of our concern (a being), although it can be, but instead as a way of
conducting ourselves, as a mode of being, as a way of seeing and showing =
things
(be-ing). The second interlocutor replies with an additional =
qualification that
might suggest that the uttered distinction between a being (being-with =
as
categorical) and be-ing (being-with as existential) is a =
fold/crease/cleavage
in be-ing itself; furthermore, it follows that the categorical =
being-with is
one possibility of the existential being-with since it is but part of =
the same
folded/creased cloth as existential being-with, be-ing being the cloth =
itself
that can be creased. 
 
So what of the crease? And my chiasmatic in-crease to the creasing of =
be-ing
and being-with? 
 
Part two of this thrilling find and analysis will be with us shortly; =
don't go
away, watch this space. 
 
excitedly and creased-up as hell 
 
michaelP 

</div>

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C24B3B.278F1F80--

--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

+ Previous by Thread: Heidegger speaks: being creased
+ Next by Thread: Heidegger speaks: being creased -- part three

Partial thread listing:

RE: Heidegger speaks: being creased, (continued…)

RE: Heidegger speaks: being creased, Bob Guevara

Heidegger speaks: being creased -- part three, michaelP
Re: heidegger's phenomenon again, Chris Morrissey (1996-10-18)

Question about certainty, David S Sidore

Re: Question about certainty, bf19454

<< Thread Prev < Date Prev…	^ date index+…	^ thread index+…	…Date Next > Thread Next >>
message ## 07724…