Standingunder Understanding

To riff on/from Heidegger via George Steiner:

To think well is to think from astonishment. To understand is to stand under.
Western Man likes to rip Nature's dress off. If not that, then some other dress or curtain. The intellectual is conceived of as a person with x-ray vision who "sees through." It's the same with reading for subtext or between the lines.
I cannot deny the attractiveness of this conception, and perhaps I will never escape it. But..

To stand under and look up. To become a permeable listener rather than a piercing gaze. We associate knowing with seeing, and this is understandable (standunderable), but it's not the only way to conceive of knowing.

Pythagoras concerned himself with harmony. Is harmony a better metaphor for wisdom than seeing-thru? I like both.

Vision seems to penetrate. Hearing allows penetration. Is phallogocentrism tied up with visual metaphors for thinking?

I'm not against "phallogocentrism" on principle. I just against denying myself a multitude of perspectives (visual metaphor).

Aristotle wrote that philosophy begins in wonder.

There is an ancient Greek saying, "The truth is hard to find" or "The truth is always hidden." Does either Heidegger or Steiner then suggest that truth is like Salome, and western man spends his time tearing off the seven veils one by one (of course accompanied by R. Strauss)?

I hope you don't really think that "understand" has anything to do with standing under anything. It is typical Heidergerrian (and Steiner) nonsense. On a par with thinking that thinking has something to do with thanking God. It is called, "pseudo-etymology", and has as much to do with etymology as astrology with astronomy.

I hope you don't really think that "understand" has anything to do with standing under anything. It is typical Heidergerrian (and Steiner) nonsense. On a par with thinking that thinking has something to do with thanking God. It is called, "pseudo-etymology", and has as much to do with etymology as astrology with astronomy.

To riff on/from Heidegger via George Steiner:

To think well is to think from astonishment. To understand is to stand under.
Western Man likes to rip Nature's dress off. If not that, then some other dress or curtain. The intellectual is conceived of as a person with x-ray vision who "sees through." It's the same with reading for subtext or between the lines.
I cannot deny the attractiveness of this conception, and perhaps I will never escape it. But..

To stand under and look up. To become a permeable listener rather than a piercing gaze. We associate knowing with seeing, and this is understandable (standunderable), but it's not the only way to conceive of knowing.

Pythagoras concerned himself with harmony. Is harmony a better metaphor for wisdom than seeing-thru? I like both.

Vision seems to penetrate. Hearing allows penetration. Is phallogocentrism tied up with visual metaphors for thinking?

I'm not against "phallogocentrism" on principle. I just against denying myself a multitude of perspectives (visual metaphor).

I hope you don't really think that "understand" has anything to do with standing under anything. It is typical Heidergerrian (and Steiner) nonsense. On a par with thinking that thinking has something to do with thanking God. It is called, "pseudo-etymology", and has as much to do with etymology as astrology with astronomy.

Something must be understood in it's whole to be rational.

Harmony and seeing-thru could be conceived as one in the same. Something which is harmonious is whole. Rational is linked to relatedness.

Yes, this is another way one could go. In Heidegger's case, it's more of a contrast. Rather than penetrating being, one becomes attuned with being. One vibrates with being rather than raping it. That last sentence is an exaggeration to get the point across. The Steiner book on Heidegger is a good read.

I believe Heidegger drew upon Kierkegaard's contrast between the Infinite and Finite in this facet of his philosophy. Whereas Kierkegaard saw the tension as inevitable, Heidegger understood that harmony could exist by allowing for the flow of Being to occur and not allowing the struggle to define ones existence.

I like the sound of that. I've not yet immersed myself in K. I've read about him in histories of philosophy and a bit of Sickness Unto Death.

I can relate to his suspicion of systems like Hegel's. I think Hegel is brilliant, but I can't accept his system as the truth. Not at all. But fragments of Hegel's system are brilliant, and fit for assimilation. I vote for reading with scissors.

I.

On the contrary I think that the fact that "understanding" suggests a "standing under" is very instructive. There is a submission involved in understanding a truth as opposed to trying to overcome and rebel against that truth. To understand a truth is much like recognizing that truth's authority. Though I'm not sure if that's the same point that Heideger and Steiner were making. However, conflating truth with authority is in most cases not a good idea. There are many things/persons who claim authority but truth is not so pluralistic.

Truth implies authority
Authority does not imply truth

Really? By which authority is it true that Mars is the fourth planet? Of course, that whole story about "understanding" is fantasy, bolstered by faux-etymology. If you think not, then please show the evidence.

On the contrary I think that the fact that "understanding" suggests a "standing under" is very instructive. There is a submission involved in understanding a truth as opposed to trying to overcome and rebel against that truth.

I think you underestimate how radical Heidegger's philosophy is. "Standing Understanding" was my invention, influenced by Heidegger's thought. I say this so you don't confuse the two.

Etymology is not by any means the center of Heidegger's case. Yes, he thinks language is primary. He calls it the house of being. Like I said, he thinks Western metaphysics went wrong with Plato. Descartes is another one of his targets. Read the sample I provided. It's hard to believe you know what you are talking about in this case. Anyone can repeat
negative cliches. If you are so keen on presenting cases, then drag out this false etymology you accuse him of. Let's see it.

I believe history will one day look very highly upon Heidegger, just may take a while for most of society to catch on.

His philosophical reputation is secured.

It sure is. And so is Derrida's. But that does not say what their reputations are.

If you are influence by H. then this stuff about "understanding" is an example of faux-etymology. There is not a shred of evidence for it. It is a fairy story. Heidegger's crap about "denken" and "danken" is exactly the same. There is not a shred of evidence for it either. It is made up out of whole cloth.

If you are influence by H. then this stuff about "understanding" is an example of faux-etymology. There is not a shred of evidence for it. It is a fairy story. Heidegger's crap about "denken" and "danken" is exactly the same. There is not a shred of evidence for it either. It is made up out of whole cloth.