Heidegger and no thing.

We venture the paraphrase; No thing is where the word is lacking. “Thing” is here understood in the traditional sense , as meaning anything that in any way is. In this sense, even a god is a thing. Only where the word for the thing has been found is a thing a thing. Only thus is it. Accordingly, we must stress as follows: no thing is where the word, that is the name, lacking.

—M. Heidegger, The Nature of Language

No thing is lacking. Heidegger has placed the emphasis on is, making it the affirmative, making it the positive. No thing is where the word, that is the name, is lacking. If we remove then (if we can remove then) the word, the name, than that is where no thing is, that is where no thing blossoms, enriches, belongs, becomes. What is no thing? Heidegger writes just before this that “thing is anything that in any way is.” And just after this selection he writes that the “world alone gives being to the thing.” But what happens if there is no word? What happens if there is no naming of the thing?

We can name—and do name—that which we know. We equate knowledge with knowing the name of something. A brick is a brick, a hammer is a hammer, the universe is the universe. By naming a thing, we create, and draw its parameters, the parameters of the thing. In the four dimensions relatively available to us, we observe (and name) that the brick takes up possibly six by four by two inches and is, in the sense that it currently occupies this time slot. It fulfills its destiny, its being, its brickness. But what happens if we remove the name for this brick, if we no longer know what to call it, in fact the it (this brick) is no longer a thing in the sense that by not naming—by removing the name—it still occupies the same dimension but is indiscernible from the world. It simply is, un-reliant, un-needed by me. By removing the subject (me) from it (the brick) do I not then also remove the object—or at least the objectifying—of it.

Why is this important? Why does this matter? I have not really removed anything. I have not changed anything, per se. The brick still occupies the same space in geographic and temporal dimensions. I have literally not even touched the brick sitting on my desk. But what I have done is removed the name, removed the word (according to Heidegger) and in this, there is something vertiginously liberating, not only for me (and my way of thinking) but also for the brick itself. By removing the name, I allow ( or rather one allows, or no one allows) the brick to be all things, to manifest its manifold being, to incorporate all things into its being. It becomes, quite literally, everything. Because, in its infinite manifestness, it incorporates everything.; the mud that gave it its current being, the water that formed the mud, the sun, the stars, the universe and it also allows it to become mud again, to become landfill, to become again, water and sun and stars and universe.


Leave a comment

Filed under Heidegger

A Must Read For a Take On Obama Now.

What Happened to Change We Can Believe In? – NYTimes.com.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Heidegger and the echo of language.

“Most often, and too often, we encounter what is spoken only as the residue of a speaking long past.”

—M. Heidegger

A name, in and with Heidegger, is too often a residue, a sound echoed. When we say “plate” or “dog” or “cider” it is always to a thing already named, already categorized timelessly ahead of time. A name has become already a thing and thereby when we say a thing we are carrying on, carrying forward, a tradition which is not necessarily ours. How then to name, to truly own something, not in the sense that we own as in to posses but own as in to appropriate—in the pure Heideggerian sense. We appropriate by making something our own, we seek to embody it with our own-ness.

Heidegger writes that everyday language, that is mortal speech, is a “forgotten and therefore used-up poem, from which there hardly resounds a call any longer.” What does the “cup” call to any longer, besides a base utility, a base, all too common form of  naming? Is this naming of “tree” any more dynamic, is it any more a call, or is it simply a quality, an averaging out of all its constituent elements.

In Georg Trakl’s poem, “A Winter’s Night” which Heidegger draws on in his essay “Language,” Heidegger points to base objects listed in the poem—table, bread, wine, window, snow—and defends them as pure calls, as having been rescued from the world of prosaic speech and returned, in a sense, to the original dynamic purity of the name. Heidegger writes that Trakl, having re-invested the words into the poem, has rescued them from the prosaic and returned them to the their dif-ference (and in this we must read dif-ference as the holding apart of two things, the separating powers.) He claims them to have been bidden by the pure language of the poem, and in bidding to have been brought into a “nearness,” a “presence” which is always absent in the mere mortal speaking of language.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

LePage Backs Away from Human Rights Act Remarks

LePage Backs Away from Human Rights Act Remarks.

via LePage Backs Away from Human Rights Act Remarks.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Fonts Project (marfa/southwest)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Disapearing fonts from the Southwest.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Mike Love’s Intellectual Wanderings

Mike Love has created a primitive program linking thinkers with other thinkers and those thinkers in with more thinkers. Seemingly banal, it is a wander through the arcades (think Benjamin’s Passagewerk, think the Flaneur) of proximity and contingency and ultimately endlessly compelling.

Leave a comment

Filed under Thinking, Uncategorized

LES ROMS, ET QUI D’AUTRE ? Anti-expulsion conference in the Parisian banlieue with Jacques Rancière, Etienne Balibar, Luc Boltanski and others… (via la dialectique casse des briques)

Reprot of an emergency meeting to counter Sarkozy’s expulsion order of the Roma people from France. Gathering together Jacques Ranciere, Etienne Balibar as well as others to discuss this cretinous act.

LES ROMS, ET QUI D'AUTRE ? Anti-expulsion conference in the Parisian banlieue with Jacques Rancière, Etienne Balibar, Luc Boltanski and others... « … ces voyageurs, pour lesquels est ouvert L'empire familier des ténèbres futures. » Baudelaire, Bohémiens en voyage (1857) The gypsies, and who else? On Saturday 11.09.2010 the demonstration/conference Les Roms, et qui d'autre ? brought together heavyweights of the French left to analyse, critique and strategise in response to: 1. the French government's recent expulsions of 'ethnic gypsies' from its territories, and; 2. the broader processes … Read More

via la dialectique casse des briques

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized