Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 17:51:59 -0600
From: Rick Novar <rnovar-AT-flash.net>
Subject: Re: to be or to be (thought) not to be


I'm replying to henry's statement as far as I have copied it below.  I
have nothing to say regarding the rest of his post.  With regard to the
point about "here we look to the past (which is what we always do.
> always have to do from one nano-second to the next) to move on into the
> future, consciously and unconsciously"  I will suggest to you that those of us in the numero uno catagory(which I will accept although we could discuss 'human potential' and its baggage)have discovered and I can't say if it's origins are particularly or primarily in heideggar some interesting possibilities beyond simply being given by a past based future so I dispute your assertion that we "always have to do" and will suggest to you that "which is what we always do" is not a doing phenomina, perhaps distinguishing an automaticity from a generative act. 
What if it were possible to take this now into a human example.  Perhaps
a past gave you/left you called to be by attractive women(potential
mates) not trusting women.  Hence anytime you were around women of that
catagory, at a certain point, this past is called to be in the present
and certainly dictates who you are being in the present and will
certainly color/or shape/or limit  who you may be in the future.  Its
like of all the possible ways one might be called to be in the presence
of a potential mate, you are stuck in one speed called don't trust em.
Don't know much about if it is or is not a function of any particular
state of consciousness or awareness.  Like you may or may not have any
access to discovering that what I have outlined above has obtained in
this example.  Many people can tell you that they don't have good
relationships now because they in the past had experiences which left
them "not trusting" the other sex.  Knowing that gives people at best
very limited access to altering those ways of being.  After all we are
"called to be", I've yet to witness and can't much conceive of "willing
being" with any authenticity.  What then can provide access to intervene
in the "that which calls you to be"  as in the past experiences that
left you "not trusting".  Perhaps we should first agree that the past is
not the necessary determinant of the future despite the appearence
operationally.  Hamsters are not genetically dispossed to running on
those wheels, they just happen to be there and start moving.  
You made mention of "retrieve and recover enough of the shared
practices" and I wonder as to the possibility of inventing new practises
in addition to examining the old.
rick

henry sholar wrote:

> 
> Bob,
> there are two ways to go about this from your groundwork, so which is it:
> 
> numero uno:
> the atomistic "I" challenges forth him/herself and BEs  (yahoo)
> here we arrive at second generation human potential movement
> 
> numero two-oh:
> the mit-sein determined dasein who authenticates her/himself within the
> realm of shared meaning (that is, the horizon)  the opened clearing  of the
> historicity of Being.  here we look to the past (which is what we always do.
> always have to do from one nano-second to the next) to move on into the
> future, consciously and unconsciously.  maybe folks who are #1 have a way of
> saying that they do that too--i don't know.
> 
> those who think numero uno is right can go to workshops and improve
> themselves, develop their potential.
> 
> those who think in terms of two-oh (i'm over here, bob) can retrieve and
> recover enough of the shared practices to figure out what is going on and to
> make it go on somemore-- maybe (just maybe) mo' bettah.  there is no need to
> negotiate from me to you about how to handle this stuff because number
> two-ohs are already looking into the common understanding, and most are,
> most of the time, looking into the common good.  minimum requirements for
> the common good are:  common understanding, good communication skills.
> 
> with taylor, (& rousseau & herder) i say yes, there is something me about me,


     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---