the violence of thinking?

Heidegger, “The Origin of the Work of Art”, 1933 (p.150-151):

Occasionally we still have the feeling that violence has long been done to the thingly element of things and that thought has played a part in this violence, for which reason people disavow thought instead of taking pains to make it more thoughtful. But in defining the essence of the thing, what is the use of a feeling, however certain, if thought alone has the right to speak here? Perhaps, however, what we call feeling or mood, here and in similar instances, is more reasonable – that is, more intelligently perceptive – because more open to Being than all that reason which, having meanwhile become ratio, was misinterpreted as being rational. The hankering after the irrational, as abortive offspring of the unthought rational, therewith performed a curious service. To be sure, the current thing-concept always fits each thing. Nevertheless, it does not lay hold of things as it is in its own being, but makes an assault upon it. 

Heidegger was the best among the Nazis - a horrible human being who made massive contributions to public intellectual deliberation. A thinking that opens to thought itself.. or whatever. In the passage above he points out the violence of abstraction, of making a caricature of things, without the wherewithal to understand the facile nature of thinking as such. There is a quality to the type of thinking that is a kind of mood or tone that does not aim to conclude on things and concerns. We do violence to the world when we take our synthetic compositions and projections as the texture of the world in-itself. We assault the world with our all-too-human "truths".

[][][]

ASIDE: Interestingly, I think this blog is fast becoming what it was originally meant for: a place for keeping fragments of fragments that influence me, and of which I intend to come back to and incorporate in future projects. An archive, no less, that I hope to burn in the pyre of my own creative activity.