First, a distilling of a Sentence from yesterday's fragment:
Fragment from 2/15:
Writing as a way of knowing (process)...
Sentences from 2/16:
1. Writing is a way of thinking (process).
2. Writing is a showing of thinking (process).
3. Writing is a making of thinking (process).
4. Writing is a technē of thinking (process, πρᾶξις)
These Sentences express one of the fundamental 'results' of 2.0, namely, the realization of originary thinking as poetics, as making.
NEXT: I was thinking about the first line of John, which only came on the scene in B&L 2.0 after the writing on Heraclitus, which happened in October just prior to and then for weeks after the HUHC lecture. The whole matter turns on λόγος.
In 2.0 there are 73 commentaries where λόγος appears, beginning with 85-88 in May, and then a few in June, July, August, and consistently from September-February, with the last commentary on 2/12/15. I need to return and read carefully through each of those commentaries. But, today, the question is on the temporality of John's λόγος in comparison with that of Heraclitus' λόγος.
Fragment from 2/15:
Writing as a way of knowing (process)...
Sentences from 2/16:
1. Writing is a way of thinking (process).
2. Writing is a showing of thinking (process).
3. Writing is a making of thinking (process).
4. Writing is a technē of thinking (process, πρᾶξις)
These Sentences express one of the fundamental 'results' of 2.0, namely, the realization of originary thinking as poetics, as making.
OPM 332(333), January 20th (2015) Meditation, Being and
Learning, pp. 353-354:
"If learning is happening
when our thinking is attuned to Being’s becoming, and when we are enacting
becoming, then education is a process, and only a process philosophy can reveal
its truth, its reality. Bracketing Whitehead, I want to describe
this project as a demonstration of process philosophy, with the ‘process’
always denoting a kind of dynamic tension between the prosaic and poetic, the
true and the beautiful, presencing and representation. The
process is becoming, and the process philosophy is the work that thinks
becoming. And only a music-making dialogic praxis is capable of actualizing such thinking;
for what other art work is revelatory? It seems to me that
sound only is capable of revealing the dynamic flow of becoming, and music is
above all else capable of expressing the human flourishing that is occurring
when we are enacting becoming. If philosophy must strive for
the articulation of a universal language, and it must to do this – such is the burden of
philosophy, and anything else must move in the practice of theory, which does
not bear the burden of expressing the universal, and is content to move in the
particularities of the petit recits then a process philosophy of education must work out a
universal language that is capable of articulating the enactment of the dynamic
flow of becoming. Descriptions that show examples of such
enactment are crucial, but not sufficient, and this project is attempting to
work out a phenomenology of a universal occurrence. Can
phenomenology do this? Yes, if the ‘thing itself’ is not a ‘thing’
in the reified sense of ‘things,’ but a ‘happening,’ an ‘event’, a
process."
In 2.0 there are 73 commentaries where λόγος appears, beginning with 85-88 in May, and then a few in June, July, August, and consistently from September-February, with the last commentary on 2/12/15. I need to return and read carefully through each of those commentaries. But, today, the question is on the temporality of John's λόγος in comparison with that of Heraclitus' λόγος.
In the beginning was the Word.
This beginning of John 1:1 happens to be one of the first two meaningful sentences I learned to read in Attic Greek, although it was written in Koine Greek:
ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
And then Heraclitus first fragment [my translation]:
Listen not to me but to logos, and hear the wisdom of the gathering of all things
Οὐκ ἐμεῦ ἀλλὰ τοῦ λόγου ἀκούσαντας ὁμολογέειν σοφόν ἐστι, ἓν πάντα εἶναι
This morning, thinking further about ceaseless nativity, I wonder about John's 'beginning' as a 'past' or as a 'ground'? When is the time of the beginning when the Word was with God? Is that the radically eternal time before becoming, from when all things arrive? Is that the temporality when via Heraclitus we can hear all things are gathered together? Is that the time of contemplation? It certainly isn't the time of making, so it is a thinking that is happening in a temporality that is apart from the time kairological time of praxis and technē.
And then Heraclitus first fragment [my translation]:
Listen not to me but to logos, and hear the wisdom of the gathering of all things
Οὐκ ἐμεῦ ἀλλὰ τοῦ λόγου ἀκούσαντας ὁμολογέειν σοφόν ἐστι, ἓν πάντα εἶναι
This morning, thinking further about ceaseless nativity, I wonder about John's 'beginning' as a 'past' or as a 'ground'? When is the time of the beginning when the Word was with God? Is that the radically eternal time before becoming, from when all things arrive? Is that the temporality when via Heraclitus we can hear all things are gathered together? Is that the time of contemplation? It certainly isn't the time of making, so it is a thinking that is happening in a temporality that is apart from the time kairological time of praxis and technē.
No comments:
Post a Comment