I have to admit, upfront, that I am not a Heidegger scholar (not even close to others on the list like Chris Doss)... what I get from Heidegger I get by reading him or by reading authors like Steiner. To a large extent, by quoting Steiner, I was hoping to present an explication of Heidegger that would do him justice. With regards to JK, I have read very little of his writings.
Perhaps because I sort of grew up with one foot in the Theosophical Society, and was inundated with the spiritual philosophical stuff of that whole gang, I have a very skewed view of their views. I tend to think of JK as an intelligent man's Deepak Chopra. Somewhat like Vivekananda or S.Radhakrishnan. Someone who puts Indian spiritual teachings and insights in a modern context. You probably understand JK better and can point out where I am wrong here.
I think if you are looking for spiritual clarification they are good at it, but I don't think I can apply their concepts in a general materialist framework. Also, personally, I prefer the more traditional narrations and story-telling forms of discourse for the Indian spiritual stuff. It is a pity that Western (and the majority of Indian) audiences cannot enjoy the discourses of someone like [the late] Kripananda Warriar.
Heidegger's value is quite different. This is not Schopenhauer or spirituality - in fact, I tend to see it as exactly as that necessary and missing framework that the spiritual attempts fail (IMHO) to offer as an alternative to the paucity of scientific/positivist accounts. As Chris pointed out, Heidegger is not here talking about (as I read it) enlightenment, UberMensch, and so on. Nor does he require of me that I adopt a framework other than what I find valid in rationalism/positivism.
Take my frequent quote of his "Science does not think". A fair reading of that segment shows, I believe, an insightful version of what it means "to think", similar (but not the same in content) to Penrose's interpretations of Gödel's result(s). While Penrose attempts to show that there is a non-algorithmic (or non-computational) act in human thinking, especially (perhaps) in the ingenuity of human solutions to difficult problems (hence the opposition to the AI programme and the angst among some, not Penrose, about Kasparov's loss to a computer), Heidegger (again as I understand him) is not trying to put his idea of "thinking" above scientific thought or activities. He stresses the importance and impressive results of science.
Also, comparing Heidegger to Indian philosophers, OTOH (or to come it from the opposite angle) my understanding of Heidegger puts his approach in quite the opposite camp: The Indian spiritualists and Western idealists/Platonists (and the scientistic) create and posit all sorts of entities and abstractions to separate the individual from his framework/context in order to explain the world, etc. Heidegger seems closer to native/aboriginal peoples' understanding and relationship to the world.
> But, there's more to be said and this is where Marx's particular genius
> (I refrain from capitalizing) comes in, and it is this: being in the
> historical (man made) world is different from being in nature and to
> become enlightened by "being in the world" in any kind of socially
> useful way means being able to look at that difference, to understand
> it, to understand how our historic/cultural happenstance textures our
> conditioning and our perception. This is not a trivial task and it was
> Marx alone who articulated i, who gave it philosophical weight, and made
> some intial forays.... Pity he has not had anyone able to take further
> steps.
I have never read Marx directly, and as Carrol might say (about other things), I am afraid nothing I have read about him (apart from what you write above), has motivated me to give it a try. If as my Marxist friends say, he scorns morality, or that his philosophy finds no room for the humane treatment of animals, I am further discouraged from spending time on him. (And what is the context where someone says something like "It is unimportant to know the world; it is only important to change it"?).
I am not sure what Heidegger would write to the above, but as someone impressed upon by him I would respond that it is a false dichotomy to talk about "being in nature" vs "being in the [historical] world". We are insofar as we exist in a historical and cultural context. There are man-made elements to our world, but that is true even of much less complex organisms, which go to great lengths to modify and shape their environment. The difference seems to me that those beings continue to live within their world but man attempts to extract the world (or rather extract himself from that world), so as to manipulate it to his needs and interests, as if he exists independent of it.
More when I get a minute... apologies for any argumentativeness,
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/