Re: Forgetting the Air

Andrea writes:
> I've read plenty of Irigaray and am reading it with the French
>version I have very little Heidegger (as yet). I'm interested in Chapter Two
>which seems(?) to be a criticism of "Building Thinking Dwelling" and "The
>Thing" (I've been told). She talks about the absence of a between, the
>female one and male one ("I'un et I'une"). And questions Heidegger's
>logic of "letting-be" (I apologise to everyone on this list for the
>crudeness of my
>understanding) as an unfolding of a female other that otherwise "is" not in
>Heideggers thinking. She then suggests her symbol of two-lips, a logic of
>two both at the same time, (this is a Diana Fuss argument) as a female
>specificity, as the something between, to add to (although I'm not so sure
>about this) Heidegger's Being as Oneness. Someone (or maybe that's at least
>two)
>suggested that this
>(Irigaray's theory of) Oneness (closed/phallic) in Heidegger was a
>misunderstanding/misinterpretation? Or could be argued with. Any comments?
>
>
>Andrea Wheeler

The One is an organizing principle. I think it is a rational intuition, or
generalization, about the apects - in general. The idea that there is one of
something takes it's origin early, in the 'existential posture', early in
life: as an infant one has one world that conflates all into one
diurnal-moment. The experience [here I draw on recent cognitive research
described in "Philosophy in the Flesh'] of love for instance is felt as
warmth and a close hug, and the infant does not understand any abstract
love. Later in life the infant becomes differentiated according to it's sex,
as either female or male. The way an infant is handled and loved is
patterned on how the parents experienced love as boy or a girl. The
behaviour that is associated with being a girl and a boy is different
through learning and experience; it is a behaviour that is patterned on how
the primary parents bring up the girl or boy, through speach and obviously
in actions. There is no real reason why a girl cannot be like a boy in
behaviour, i.e. play with boys and play like boys, etc. to my thinking.
There are examples where children have been brought up to become the
opposite in behaviour to what their sex stereotypic should conform to based
on training and en-culturation. There are theories that suggest that females
and males have biologically different brains and autonomic responses
-obviously. However, in the beginning we are much alike as infants and it is
only later that we become 'masculine' and 'feminine' based on conditioning
both culturally and programmatically [institutional gating - I would call
it]. There may well be cognitive performance measures that differentiate
boys from girls, but there is probably overlap. 

My reading is that Heidegger did not understand any difference within
Dasein [the human situation] specifically that would designate an
ontological difference at the start, i.e. any categories of understanding
via the categorial sense [or intution]. He did state that there is a Dasein
which is 'disseminated' [the enlish translation is 'dissemination' implying
the Dasein of the seed, or sexual difference] which becomes gender much like
any object I quess.  

Anyway you bring up an interesting thought about something. The body itself
is arranged largely in pairs of organs, limbs and so on. Except for the
mouth, the vagina, the phallus, everthing about the body occurs in pairs,
even the brain. One mouth but two lips, two lips to make song, a tongue to
speak with. The brain is one but has two halfs that are identical except in
function. There are certain organs that are solely inside that are one that
are largely digestive, the heart is one but chambered. At any rate there are
many signs in nature that indicate the solus or solitary. 

Maybe the answer is the phenomenon of temporality as finitude. The
biological explanation for the sexes is rather simple. The species that
reproduce sexually concur great advantage to themselves in adapting to other
organisms and environmental threats such as viruses, bacteria, solar
radiation, toxic substances, etc. A species that reproduces asexually, if it
is highly organized, cannot adapt to threats in the environment through
selection of the fittest as a result of chance mutations that are none
lethal. Organisms that do reproduce asexually are short lived, and they are
not impacted the same way by environmental substances and agents. Evolution
has 'engineered' emotions and the senses to make it enjoyable to beget
children and to find necessary nutrients in the environment. We associate
the taste of salt for instance with a pleasureable taste sensation when it
is added onto our food. Things which are bitter are often not necessary or
are toxic. 

On another level there is something unique about the body we have. It is
able to stand up on two legs as a biped. This requires a lot of thinking
[and grey matter] to defeat gravity. The Bhuddist tradition designates the
'the first dignity' as the prone position. As babies we spend the first six
months or so lying down. We spend most of our lives lying down when in
comparison to walking, standing or sitting. Much of the intimacy that we
have in life is experienced lying down. Lying down allows much of the brain
to rest as well as most muscles in the body. Lying in a hammack and reading
a book with the breeze is the most enjoyable form of rest, quiet, and
silence that one can experience in my mind. We lose much of our mind when we
are at rest and this frees up so much else for other things: intimacy,
sleep, dreams, waking dreams, etc. The original affluent societies, the
neolithic cultures of the Pacific, for instance, spent much of the day in
the prone position, waiting for the heat of the day to pass, dreaming and
talking. 

The One is an abstraction derived from thinking too much while one is
sitting or while one is on one's feet. There is more enjoyment in lying down
really I think because it is a good way to escape from the implications of
bi-polarity, and the energy require to stand or sit.  

In the lying down position we experience a different world from the upright
one. In my experience there is not so much a sense of the coordinates of
Euclidean space, but an experience of contours, of folds, of fissures and
smooth areas. If I close my eyes and imagine holding someone or touching
myself, then the energy that is in my body is devoted to the tactile world
of the flesh more so than the eyes. My sense of touching the skin is of
something smoother than velvet, and warm. I can hold myself or I can hold my
partner. There is no real distincition of what is mine and what is of the
other, there is the sensation of what is occurring at the touch where there
is contact. When there is a partner to hold and be close to there is a sense
of oneness, and it almost seems that the existence of the other is more, as
real as the self. I think the original life of the infant is where this
existential posture begins. 0h well it has too. I disagree with people not
letting the infant interact with parents and offspring or family. The
television would be cruel for an infant up to two years of age. Other
phenomenon seem to differentiate too. Time itself expands, and becomes
phenomenal. I have practiced a lot in a hammack during the afternoon. I take
a book and begin to read it - say the biography of Georgia Okeffe. I am
reading about a description of the artis'ts home in New Mexico. The
biographer has met her in her home and is commenting on the lack of art
displayed on the interior  walls of her adobe home. Georgia explains that
she ones no distractions from the view that she has from the windows and
piazza of her home. Objects on the wall would interfere with that. The art
is outside and unfolds each second. There is no courtyard, no obstruction.
Lying down in the hammack allows me to imagine this place. I have been to
the Great Basin deserts, into Nevada, Utah, all over, Andes, Chirripo,  but
not New Mexico, and I have been to Baja del Sur in Mexico, both in the
mountains where they make round balls of goat cheese, and handmade furniture
out of palm and cactus. The people are very poor but live similarly to how
they have lived for centuries. Eventually my mind slips off into the
imaginary imagery that I have of the place where Georgia lives. It is
wonderful way to see, and to empathize. After awhile I fall into a sleep in
the hammack but I still continue to dream of this place with junipers, and
pinyon and cactus and adobe and colors. This is the place where colors are
made. used to do this in lectures early in the morning or when the sun shown
through the windows in the back where I sat. I learned how to keep my head
up. I was way out there imagining and dreaming about the place. For
inspiration I go to the mountains or the ocean sides, where I can dream. I
sleep in so I can watch the light unfold the mountains and canyons below.
The image of two peaks for instance was on the list here. Since this post I
imagine the two peaks on a plateau in the island of Thebes as spoken of by
Hermogenes and Socrates. 

John Foster

Clearwater, B.C. 
Canada

"When I see a person riding a bicycle my faith in humanity is restored" 

H.G.Wells



     --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---