Revisiting
the writing from 12/06/14 demands more revising than has been implied in this
process of commenting each day on the original meditations. Today revisiting involves a re-vision of what
was originally written, and thus a writing that arrives from the new
perceptions of the ‘same’ phenomena described then and now. This morning I read in Schürmann how the
latter Heidegger’s turn toward thinking was a turn away from Dasein, and with that from a
phenomenology of the modalities that are epochally determined to phenomenology
of the reception of the way things are presenting themselves. With the latter
we can identify thinking as thanking,
which is to say, thinking as gratitude toward that which is being offered. Thinking as thanking is perception as
reception, and from this follows a phenomenology of the offering [as Rocha
might put it with his folk phenomenology that is never simply an apodictic
description but a revelatory enactment, or perhaps reenactment]. Es
gibt (it is given) is disclosed with grateful thinking as the offering that
is received as novel or new. Grateful
thinking receives Being in the excessive form, as a donation. I’m using donation because this word denotes
the offering as the giving of what is needed.
And the roots also denote the offering as the giving of something new,
something infused with natality. Grateful
thinking is a phenomenology of the advent of Being’s ceaseless nativity. And such thinking as hermeneutics grants us
the license to revisit again and again any and all writing, including and
perhaps especially our own, and to do so with the gratitude that we will
encounter something that remains unsaid, or needs to be said again in a new
way.
Re-vision
follows from reception, and today this reception only entails the replacement
of terms, because the arrangement of the description unfolding from the
meditation remains sound. Of course, one
could argue that the need to replace terms undermines the structural integrity
of the description. But I would counter
that we must indeed think this matter through metaphors and analogies drawn
from architecture and engineering. And
in this case the pressing question is whether or not the structural integrity
is compromised during the
replacement, presuming we grant the possibility of such replacement
happening. Of course, all of this depends on the
structure we have in mind, yes?! If
pushed I would have to imagine a sailboat, because it seems most the most
daunting situation to imagine replacing the mast or rudder when under
sail. In the case of the sail boat it
has been shown that all is not lost when the mast or rudder needs to be
replaced, presuming the sailor(s) is capable of making the work. But these parts of the sailboat are not
related to the structural integrity of the floating structure, so these are bad
examples. I’ll leave this aside and move
ahead with replacing certain key terms and then we’ll see if I continue to
sail, or resort to swimming after the description has foundered. And, if that happens, I’m returned to the
originary.
The
‘friend’ and ‘friendship’ have been replaced by ‘colleague’ (collega) and ‘fellowship,’ and from this
we bring into focus the description of the learning community as a working
group. And with this replacement I’ve
been able to tentatively resolve the question concerning the dialectic of one
and many vis-à-vis the gathering force of koinōnia. Members of the
working group retain their singularity, and because of this a creative tension
is maintained. As I wrote in yesterday’s
commentary, the learning community is reduced to the presence of Difference. “The play of the πάντα, which denotes ‘all’,
‘the whole’, and ‘each, every’. When
Heraclitus describes the hidden harmony he speaks of the higher harmony that is
inclusive of the concordant and discordant, and thus is steered by a logic that
can gather together via the
contradiction.”(12/05/14) Difference establishes and maintains
intersubjectivity; difference is the polemos
that steers everything, and by steering I mean directs what is being moved;
directs the work of the learning community that is being moved by the force of
Being’s ceaseless nativity.
Being’s offering is
described as the ‘third’ on 12/6/14, with difference described as the
‘ground’. ‘Ground’ needs to be
replaced, because only the Open is foundational, ontologically. An existential (or existentiale) category
can not operate ontologically. An
‘ground’ is always denoting the ontological.
Difference replaces plurality, and ground is replaced by vibration or
wave, in order to express the sonic quality of what is being made in this
work. The work is “related to a third
that is not present, and remains concealed, hidden, and spills over in the
improvisational.” (BL 301) The work
is related to the originary third; but the work itself expresses the third
insofar as there is always a trinity emerging in the process of offering and
receiving, granting and gratitude. “The
third emerges as the project of learning, the creative process itself.”(BL 301)
Members (first) of the group related by difference (second) make
learning (third). Being, Nothing, Becoming. “The third is conveyed by the evocative and
indicated by the guess showing the in-definite condition of be-ing as impermance…The play of presencing/absencing,
appearance/concealment points to a third.” (BL
302) Points to a third? The excess
‘beyond’ the play? What remains (how?, where?)
Grateful thinking,
receiving the ceaseless nativity, with “the unbroken eye and glance of
eternity.”(Nietzsche, Zarathustra, cited
BL 302)
3.0 (Friday, Portland, Maine) - Yesterday's 3.0 was written less than 12 hours ago. I've been doing a bunch of skimming of the 2.0, because I decided over the summer that I was going to make connections between the OPM/2.0 writing and "LEARN." But last night I read the 2.0 carefully. And was glad I did so, as I could feel that writing from 20 years ago resonating in the present project. This morning the fragment that jumps out at me is the following: The work is “related to a third that is not present, and remains concealed, hidden, and spills over in the improvisational.” (BL 301) If yesterday's 2.0 announced the movement into chapter 10 "The Improvisational Art of Teaching/Learning," then this tenth chapter of "Being and Learning" might be where the foundation of my project was poured, understanding the writing that happened in chapters 1-9 as a preparation. Chapter 10 and 11 are the longest, and had I been more patient and/or had the time/space to really focus I would have published an abridged version of the book. But I was so fixated on the 363 (2 days short of a year, although it was a leap year, so there are actually 364 days of daily writing) consecutive days that I couldn't see the proverbial forest for the trees, or perhaps the trees or a grove within the larger forest. At any rate, the connections and continuity between then and now are real. Here is a fragment from "LEARN" that connects to the fragment that jumped out at me: "A work can be studied philosophically because there always remains something hidden, concealed, a significant saying that remains silent. And every study session ends with the book saying, To be continued. Blanchot: “The work is solitary…whoever reads it enters into the affirmation of the work’s solitude, just as he who writes it belongs to the risk of this solitude.” The writing that documents the significance of the work is an example of writing that Blanchot is referring to. That writing, which happens after reading, produces a précis, a collection of fragments that have broken through from the text and called out to the student. A précis is a phenomenological account of what Arendt describes as the reception of the world. And the book is a representation of the world, which Arendt describes as in need of renewal. Philosophical study, as that care and love of the world (amor mundi), offers an account of the dokei moi (the way the world appears or opens up to me). But each encounter with the text is an event, it cannot be repeated because the book is neither “finished or unfinished.” Study, along with the discussion that follows, is an act of renewal, which is to say, a recollection and a conservation both of the book’s enduring significance and its openness, an affirmation of the fata of the libelli, a recognition of the book’s freedom." AND: A work can be studied philosophically because there always remains something hidden, concealed, a significant saying that remains silent. And every study session ends with the book saying, To be continued. Blanchot: “The work is solitary…whoever reads it enters into the affirmation of the work’s solitude, just as he who writes it belongs to the risk of this solitude.”
ReplyDelete3.0b - AND: "AND: "The vibrancy and vitality of the discussion is thus the (re)circulation of the poetics that birthed the book. New meaning arrives and is present in the discussion inspired by the poetics of the text that has broken through. Bachelard uses the visual metaphor “unforeseeable” to denote the hidden meaning that arrives spontaneously. But better is the sonic metaphor of “unheard” to describe what is said during the improvisational discussion. What is “unheard” is what has not yet been spoken, and this is what listening anticipates, the arrival of the new that will initiate a novel response. The unheard, “is this not an apprenticeship to freedom?” The fragment is heard “as a phenomenon of freedom.” Interpretation is a spontaneous response, an enactment of the principle of freedom that is inspired by the poetics expressed and collected as fragments, by those aphoristic breaks that circulate and are improvisationally remixed in the discussion. The unheard remains outside the teleology of schooling, away from predictable “outcome.”
ReplyDelete