Friday, August 5, 2016

Considerations Pertaining to the Determination of The Element

We aim to distinguish the Element and show the ecology from which its peculiarity is to be located. We distinguish it from Buddhist Enlightenment, we show it in the light of the animal, thought as captivation. Its ecology is that of the worlds, the historial worlds of Da-Sein or Dasein. Dasein as an ordinary term becomes Da-Sein, the claim about the unthought region of experince, the ground between intelligibility and all beings or things. Da-Sein is thought as Element and becomes Dasein. This movement is homologous to that of captivation, the human being, and the Element.

Captivation, the poor in world, means that something is not seen as something. Traditionally this could be explicated by saying that the human is always either higher or lower than the animal, for the reason that the depths, say cannibalism, and the heights, say the thrones as sung by Hölderlin, evade and deflect captivation. The human emotions were supposed to be more diverse. Here I use another example, that of laughter and tears. Laughter breaks the concentration, we cry in so far as we can laugh, and to cry is also to loose one’s attention. The human being, also, knows periods of captivation, of nervous sleepwalking, but they are comparatively few and far between. The lack of being, say that a chair is pressing against the body, but unthought, is not the same matter as the captivation. The animal too, has the absence of their poor world.

If the example of the Bowerbird is offered we can also see it. Since the art is not there as art, but it is only for the human, that the art of the captivated bird is there as something. It is there, and not absent, but it is there in captivation. The Buddhist experience of Enlightenment absolutises the something as something. The something, is now Nirvana. The something is, just as much, in Kierkegaard, the Knight of Faith. Sometimes people, form outside, say, this state is that of the human become dialectically animal. This gives one an idea of what Heidegger means when he says Kierkegaard is ontic. Ontologically, captivation, Da-Sein, and the Element are in play. What is decisive is that experience is in play in the Buddhist Enlightenment. What is burned away is the being as being.

We see the Element, that which Heidegger wants to express in the walking about the old city, where everything is closed, in the time before the secular, on a Sunday. That text wants to show the mood of Boredom ontologically, elementally. But, unlike in the captivation, there is no captive, but an uncanny opening. The world is so uncanny in this Element that it wants to suggest Being. The opening of the Element, wants to draw towards the unthought movement of the worlds. This is why, in his book Sojourns, Heidegger wonders if he will find the Greek world in the ruins, not in the ontic, or the things, but in the opening of the Greek element.

We see the anticipation of the larger thinking through of the worlds in various reflections on the way Greek, Christian and Modern Da-Sein think concepts, such as that of the principles of logic. But the thought of Heidegger tries to raise itself to the thinking of the worlds historialy. Only if the opening of Being is thought through historialy can it be thought at all. Because without the contrast it is unthinkable.     

This account is technically inaccurate in certain points, but one is meant to see through the pedagogical
shabbiness, a kind of path.  

No comments:

Post a Comment