Together you have 'nailed it'.
Reconstructo; When you say, "That there IS something that cannot be said, but the reason this something cannot be said because it is simply not conceptual.", you are pointing to what Jeeprs said when he said "It is actually a very difficult idea to grasp correctly and it is very easy to grasp it incorrectly."
I say it is extremely difficult to 'un-grasp' what we already 'assume' we know especially while living in a world that assumes it knows. The 'condition' doesn't give you any room to 'be' who you are.
You know I wanted to come back to this thread, because I felt I was rude to you in my last post to you. I'm glad to see how gracious this post of yours is. I thought about your "nakedness" comment, and realized in retrospect that you probably meant the "ineffable" that cannot be said. Sorry that I interpreted it as more negative than it was. Allow me to sincerely complement you on this. Perhaps this is what you were trying to say all along, and it is indeed quite an important "concept" (a concept that points away from concept?)
Yes, the "self" is made of such concepts, or at least we often think it is. And yet the living immersed non-conceptual self is made of what? The ineffable aspect of being-under-erasure. And indeed, it's hard to talk about, because all talking refers to more talking. Only a little bit of talking here and there refers away from talking, because we love the talk that justifies our power-play, that is
our power play.
What do you make of time? Hegel's version of time is undeniably sublime. Time as a byproduct of concept. But I guess without knowing that Heidegger is talking perhaps more of the continuity of sensual/emotional experience? Or not? I have read more second hand sources than Heidegger himself, because of a certain impatience. Hell, even the typeset and translation style of the Being and Time available to me mattered to me.
The sensual element of books in significant. And indeed translation can make the difference between reading and not reading a book. I read a good translation of the Birth of Tragedy once and then bumped into an atrocious translation. And I knew that I would never have "gotten it" from the bad translation, had I been exposed to that one first.
I think Rorty missed something about both Heidegger and
Wittgenstein. Now, Rorty is a brilliant guy, but we all make mistakes. Again, sorry about the rudeness in my last post. I was grumpy that day.
---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 12:30 AM ----------
Jeeprs said; Well, again, another Buddhist concept is useful here, which is that the teaching itself (i.e. Buddha's teaching) is a raft which carries you 'across the river' but has no further use.
This is not to say that the raft is not useful. After all, there is an enormous canonical collection of texts and commentaries, and an ever-proliferating collection of popular and scholarly books on same. They communicate and inform, they are not just empty words. But their whole purpose is to move you beyond the realm of discourse."
Jeeprs contribution is 'spot on' again. However you should use what he said as a clue, nothing more. The 'raft' is a "combination of characteristics" you (and Buddha) use to represent 'be-ing' as you 'reflect' on who you are, there is no 'raft'.
The 'river' is a metaphor (concept) for a journey 'across' something. This 'journey' is based on a starting point (past), an ending point (future), and the 'crossing' (present). There is only 'now', no past, present, or future. There is no 'journey'.
Do you like Wittgenstein's TLP? How do you relate that to Heidegger? He uses the disposable ladder metaphor to great effect.
As far as there being only now, this is also in Kojeve. But in a different light. The past and the future are concept that exist in the present which is spatial. Where all temporarily is conceptual
. Of course I see now that one can focus on the non-conceptual as the Being of being. Is that how you see it? I would still argue that another valid answer to this question is unity.
And this would tie into Aristotle's essence, I think. One could say that life is a collision of the ineffable continuous and the conceptual discrete. Of course we live this unity. And it must be a unity for thought, right? Because thinking is unification. I suppose we could call it a dualism, but the term dualism is already a unification.