Re: Zimmerman/four-fold

Phil,

With regard to Caroline Myss I wanted to say, somewhat sheepishly, that
one of the biggest problems I have run up against in chasing Heidegger
is the fact that there are many parrallel presentations in the
traditional metaphysical context that are very attractive, almost the
same, heart-felt attempts to think (and live) things through. I keep
slipping back into the traditional metaphysics because of this. I can
see many parrallels in Jung's work, for instance, that approximate
Heidegger's thinking. A guy named Roger Brooke wrote an very nice book
called "Jung and Phenomenology" for instance, that tried to work out the
phenomenological in Analytical Psychology. There are many parrallel
approaches I see in the methodologies of psychotherapy. Thomas Ogden,
for instance, or Christopher Bollas. Or from my camp, people like James
Hillman and his "Archetypalist" followers. And yet, as Michael E. has
pointed out to me, the issues here run quite deep, and often prove quite
subtle. I'll not forget the posting in which I was told, basically, that
I would probably be going in circles until I just scrapped my attempt to
keep both metaphysical systems going at the same time. In my case that
ment dropping my constant attempts to salvage Jung (which is still
difficult for me). In Michael E.'s case it ment the same with respect to
Marx. I don't know how this impacts on your thinking about Myss's work,
if at all, but I thought I would throw this posting on the table for
you. If it has no meaning and I am off the mark, then fine.

How can we get at the significance of what all these people in
traditional metaphysics are after, through Heidegger? When my daughter
asks me to talk to her about an issue I can easily discuss
through my traditional metaphysical theories, but am left standing there
with my mouth open from a Heideggerian point of view, or when I "know"
just what someone "means" when they say that their soul "hurts", and I
don't know what they mean at all when I look at the same person through
my Heideggerian eyeglass...then what? I can switch back to my
traditional metaphysical point of view, or I can keep trying to see
Heidegger's point of view, and look like a dope in the mean time, I
guess.

Where I do agree with you is on your point about acting in the world. I
certainly enjoy the "Philosophical Light outside my window" and hope
that I too can keep on as I have. But I also want this light to
illuminate my path in the world from more than just a thinking point of
view. But, then, that is also what heidegger was after...no?

Michael Staples

Michael Staples







     --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---