INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY KARDINAAL MERCIERPLEIN, 2 B-3000 LEUVEN BELGIUM

____________

Deadline for Submission: March 15 Please submit the form by e-mail to your supervisor and to the International Programme Office

KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

__

2nd Progress Report MPHIL THESIS

NAME and FIRST NAME of student : Dustin Zielke

__

Title: Losing Singularities

Supervisors name: Professor Rudi Visker

The following document should be attached to this form: progress report of max. 500 words a

PAGE NO . . ,

22001/MTD/BeursRi2001 Error: Reference source not found

__

__

I have been finished my research period since before the first progress report. Since that time, I have been writing my thesis, taking my time in trying to figure out how I could frame it the best way possible. Ive hit upon a few dead ends, and Ive been re-writing my ideas in different ways because of this. Beneath both of these previous approaches was the inuition that there is a temporal-spatial presence that needs to be developed by individuals in order to appreciate things, people, places before they are lost. Just before Christmas, I first tried to frame the thesis with the help of Sigmund Freuds On Transience, dealing with the issue of, what some commentators have called, anticipatory mourning and the transience and temporality of presence in light of a coming demise. Then, just before the second semester, I tried to frame the thesis more in terms of the temporal differences between Heideggers ideas on the object of science, the stock or standing-reserve of enframing, and the thing. I was writing very much this whole time and I have very many drafts to show for it, but I was struggling to find my own voice, especially in distinction from Heidegger. These approaches were just complicating this problem instead of simplifying it. Just in the past week or so, I decided to frame my topic in terms of a contrast, but not so much a critique, between my position (the singular dimension) and Heideggers time-space. This has helped me very much because it has helped me begin to differentiate what I am thinking from what Heidegger has said in his texts. Previously, I was having a very difficult time understanding the difference between what I was saying and what Heidegger was saying, to the point that I was conflating my ideas with his. I was too close to his text and thought. So Ive tried now developing what I am saying by using my own language in contrast to his, which has helped me see the difference between what I was thinking and what was actually there in his texts, what he had actually said, and what was only implied by his texts. I have just handed over my first chapter to Professor Visker and I very much look forward to working with him to improve my position, my ideas, and my writing.