GR 156-170, colors, compounds

[Bled Welder]

Are you asking psilo-me, or I mean, psilo-asking me?  I admit I enjoyed Heidegger's later thought on Being way back in the day, but I never thought there was any particular point to it.  I remember knowing as a matter of fact that one could bypass Heidegger's whole deconstruction of representational thinking, the big ****up of Western thought since Plato, right, by simply eating lsd.  Heidegger had to crawl his way back through 2500 years of philosophy to get to the pre-Socratics thought on Being to get to thinking about Being, all I did was drop six hits of white blotter...
I always wondered that, what his thoughts on Being had anything to do with Nazism.  And thinking about it now, I don't remember if his bizarre "error in Being" statement was about an error in his judgment about the Nazis, or Being's judgment about Nazis, whatever.
Seems like Heidegger would be good for fiction writers though, with his angst, and authenticity, etc., all the stuff most people are okay with until he went off into the deep end with pure Being.
Good question though, why does anybody adhere to a philosophy.  Presumably because they're convinced by the arguments, but it's prolly much more than that right?  If you're a Nazi already, you ****ing love thinking Being!

> Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 23:09:32 -0500
> Subject: Re: GR 156-170, colors, compounds
> From: michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> 
> ...not that there's any real point in harshing on old Heidegger.
> 
> I mean, the philosophic tradition is a long conversation and (from an
> outsider view) pretty inbred.  So that he's replying to Kant and Hegel
> (who was also replying to like Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas and such)
> and maybe Marx and probably Sartre and a bunch of other wordy,
> cerebral types, distinguishing his viewpoints from theirs, taking
> stances that don't make all that much sense unless you're aware of the
> issues and terms that led up to them.
> 
> And the people who work in that line spend a lot of time refuting the
> last guy, so they probably aren't that worried about Heidegger's
> theories being wrong because the way they get a reputation is refuting
> them anyway...just as he got his reputation by saying basically "all
> those older guys were wrong about even the most basic things, and
> here's how it really is"  (sometimes I do that myself...but I get more
> of a kick out of other activities, in general)
> 
> And certainly nobody is perfect.  I like to think that I'd resign from
> the phone company if they started firing all the Germans or something,
> but gee, I like working there and so forth.
> 
> and furthermore...old Jahn who did a lot for the sport of gymnastics
> had some nasty bookburning antisemitic etc tendencies around the
> edges, but people still use other contributions that he made
> 
> nonetheless, Heidegger wanted to redefine Being -- what is it about
> his definition that makes it psilo-fabulous?
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120310/de2ac66f/attachment.html>