Narcissism and Dispersion

[Anonymous No.19422664]

Thoughts?
https://www.urbanomic.com/chapter/fanged-noumena-narcissism-and-dispersion-in-heideggers-1953-trakl-interpretation/

[Anonymous No.19422818]

>>19422664
I kind of agree with his view of Heideggers analysis of Trakl but I think his own view is much too drenched in his own nihilism while Trakl retained certain mystical and romantic tendencies alongside the bleakness. He seems to interpret these tendencies in his own quasi-occult schema which admits of their "transcendent" character but he characterizes them in a wholly negative fashion, referring only to madness, incomprehensible Noumenal intrusions, while I find Trakl much milder if decidedly obscure in his intimations. There is a perpetual lament in Trakl for the wounded animal or child, the innocent and beautiful, which I think he tries to reconcile with his visions of decay, corruption, insanity etc by means of a mystic reunion with a source he never quite clearly represents(partly because you cant, hence the vague yet potent images which you start to see as symbols reoccurring from poem to poem, which offer a kind of psychic touchstone for moods without creating a system, where he can make the two polarities coexist in a kind of dream state) but which is nothing like the nightmare Land is proposing. I think Trakl was much less complicated than he is sometimes described as being, he was just a tortured romantic imo.

[Anonymous No.19424071]

>>19422818
I don’t think I will be able to properly address your statements, since even though they are clear their relationship to Land’s essay aren’t quite clear to me.
The essence of the essay is not to deviate or change too much of what Heidegger interprets through Trakl and interpreting trakl isn’t even a main point. The conflict, that emerges, strictly lies with Heidegger. (imo the last line of the essay is really great.)
Hence, the conflict that emerges is Hegel’s “outrage” at the stars and how they do not fit into the clear rational system he finds on earth; this χαος that does not lend itself to resolving it as in Heidegger’s (vain) attempt in Zwiefach versus Zwietracht. Continuously trying to solve the problem by feigning to grab it by its roots; ‘ontic problems are problems within being and no longer just difference between themselves’.
Trakl provides very eloquently a way for Heidegger to coalesce his ideas, while still in Trakl, as Land supposes there really is, a leprosy disease still permeates; so then, in ‘response’ to this, “Heidegger - exhausted and uncomfortably feverish - lays down his copy if Trakl’s poems, and closes his eyes.”
The vain purification efforts versus something that does not subject itself to them. Trakl was ever only a vessel in this essay imo.

[Anonymous No.19424642]

b

[Anonymous No.19425832]

again

[Anonymous No.19426597]

Next time put
>Nick Land
>Fanged Noueman
>NRx
>Hyper-racism
>acceelrationism
>g/acc
>into the trash it goes
>twitter
into your subject so that you get some more bumps for serious discussion to survive the slide threads.

[Anonymous No.19426659]

[Anonymous No.19426691]

>>19425832

[Anonymous No.19427109]

>>19424071
Maybe I misunderstood the essay(very possible) but it seemed to me Land was identifying the theme of disease with the khaos or Noumenal as the thing which couldn't fit inside their systems. This was what I was feeling did not accord entirely with how Trakl approaches disease and the transcendent.

[Anonymous No.19427176]

>>19426659

[Anonymous No.19428173]

b

[Anonymous No.19428680]

There have to be more people who have actually read the essay.