What does resonate for me here is the sense that modern philosophy has been mostly a losing-one’s-way, a counterproductive diversion into technical pseudoproblems and clever one-up word games that no one should care about.
-
-
So inasmuch as “the complete stance” addresses our actual way of being, maybe it does reflect a “return” to questions that matter, as Ancient Greek philosophy did. OTOH, afaik the understanding of the question which H developed in B&T is quite alien to Greek thinking.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Re “in our continual renegotiation of what it is to Be, we get caught in various fixations along the way?”: B&T is also a nosology of ways of being, but the specifics are pretty different from what I’ve explored.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @JohannesAchill
Thanks for this! Perhaps I should use quarantine as an opportunity to actually dive into Heidegger! I’d roughly been mapping ontotheology onto eternalism (grounding Being in fixed, supreme being), leading to a forgetfulness of Being as a necessarily ongoing process.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
And then understanding Being by looking into our own being (as the beings whose being is in question) roughly corresponding to Kegan’s understanding of organism as ongoing meaning-making (and thereby self-and-object reconstructing)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @JakeOrthwein @JohannesAchill
This also seems right… your ability to make these connections is impressive!
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @JohannesAchill
Been trying to work this out by spamming
@nosilverv for weeks...
pic.twitter.com/tVvOfL4y1F
2 replies 3 retweets 12 likes -
Are you OK with my retweeting this? I realize it’s off-the-cuff and you may want to wait for a more polished version.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I don’t mind as long as you don’t notice any glaring errors (and you think it’d be intelligible to anyone without context). The lack of polish gives me plausible deniability if I discover I was horribly wrong when I actually read Heidegger
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeOrthwein @Meaningness and
This was the last bit, for good measure (based again mainly on extrapolations from you and
@vervaeke_john)pic.twitter.com/JlqCz6BQoF
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I haven’t read Nishitani (although I’ve been aware of him since I started reading Madhyamaka in depth 20 years ago). Generally the Dzogchen view of Zen is that it “tends to err on the side of nihilism,” fwiw. But he’s on my “ought to read list” per @vervaeke_john’s recommendation
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @JakeOrthwein and
Fwiw another easy-to-make error here, discussed at length in the Madhayama commentaries, is reifying emptiness, turning it into The Cosmic Principle; this seems the Buddhist analog to ontotheology
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @JakeOrthwein and
I look forward to reading about how you connect all this with object-relations theory! Phil Agre and I did a graduate seminar in that stuff with George Goethals in ~1987, and it influenced us significantly.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.