[lotus-and-sunflower] [The search for the subject] 3 Heidegger&Zen

[Guest guest]

>"Dennis Lindsley" <qbooks

>

>Max:

>

>Very interesting food for thought, a morsel of which follows:

> "...This is the double aperture of seeing the formed gesture,

> against the profound background

> of the empty and silent stage.

> The gesture of language is but a gathering,

> a hinting, in a clearing of being,

> in an unspeakable emptiness."

>Who or what is the seer in the double aperture process of "[seeing] the formed

gesture...."? Is language the seer of itself as a formed gesture? Of course not.

 

But aren't we backing ourselves into a subjectless corner by making such

statements or is there a subject in there somewhere?

>From a Heideggerian point of view, I think the 'seer'

is to be understood as the human subjectivity as

'being-in-the-world' in that experience. I think we

can understand that to be able to see in that way

implies a certain transformation of the subject,

but I believe Heidegger would stay away from

metaphysical speculations about escaping an ego

and rather talk about a new way of being in the world.

 

In Heidegger's phenomenology, there is an intimacy

between the subject-being-there and the 'there'

which discloses itself to the subject, such that

the two are really one in close embrace. At least,

this is my interpretations of Heidegger's thought

(which I studied quite intensively in my youth).

 

So think not 'subjectless scene' but

intimacy of the subject in the scene.

 

 

 

 

---------------------------

FREE - yourname - Just visit http://www.philosophers.net

[Guest guest]

Whoops! I think I caught myself speaking nonsense,

or maybe accidently saying a zen koan:

>In Heidegger's phenomenology, there is an intimacy

>between the subject-being-there and the 'there'

>which discloses itself to the subject, such that

>the two are really one in close embrace.

 

How can a 'one' be in a close embrace with itself?

 

Should I have said "the two are really one,

internally bifurcated into a duality of aspects

in close embrace with each other in their oneness?"

 

Or should I have said "the seer and the scene

are two modes of being of one Being, and are

in close embrace in their being together?"

 

I suppose Heidegger would have refrained from 'Saying'

any of the above, preferring to remain a phenomenologist,

fearful that mysticism might lead him back into ontotheology.

 

But isn't the Emptiness longing to 'Say' this?

 

-- Max

 

 

---------------------------

FREE - yourname - Just visit http://www.philosophers.net