Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 10:05:43 -0600
From: Rick Novar <rnovar-AT-flash.net>
Subject: Re: "I"


henry sholar wrote:
> 
> >> Anthony (and anyone else who is interested),

I am reminded of this passage:


"Dasein's  kind of Being thus demands that any ontological

interpretation which sets itself the goal of exhibiting the phenomema in

their primordiality, should capture the Being of this entity, in spite

of this entity's own tendencey to cover things up.  Existential

analysis, therefore, constantly has the character of doing

violence(Gewaltsamket) whether to the claims of the everyday

interpretation, or to its complacency and its tranquillized obviousness"

B&T 359


It seems to be all interpretation and ultimately futile due to the

slippery nature of being,  the "unconcealment", "unfolding",

"revealing", of "Being in the world", seems to be an activity requiring

another/others some referential something.
 
I saw this in another thread, 

	Is it possible to speak authentically of the self with Heidegger 	and
ignore the "call" to "resoluteness?"  Who am I?  The 	response can only 
be, "The uncovering of Being in history."  	Any discussion of the "I" as
a representation of a singular 	psychic "self" seems to avoid the sense
of Dasein as that which 	listens and speaks in anxious awaiting of the
unconcealment of 	Being.   

     "I" am reading this in SZ II.2.59-60.

<snip>
> 

> hen again:
>  I think Heidegger offers two modes of being for an *individual* Dasein
> (*distinct from a *group* Dasein, like a nation or a company or an institution):
> 
> 1)  inauthentic:  falling-in-with Das Man ("the anyone"  "the everyone")
> where not only do we share the historical-cultural skills and practices, and
> take on cultural roles, but we don't recognize that there is anything beyond the
> roles.  for inauthentic Dasein, the cultural roles are all there is...we stay fallen.
> 
> 2)  authentic Dasein recognizes the cultural roles Dasein is called upon to
> perform in "falling-in-with" Das Man, but recognizes that these are roles, that
> they are mere interpretations of being, and to be authentic is to wrestle with
> the *mineness* beyond the roles, that "nothingness" that is our recognizable
> "self."

What if this is merely scratching the surface as far as the
"possibilities of being "? Perhaps there are as many "modes of being" as
there are possible "whatever it is that evokes or calls Dasein to be". 
That is, a crying child will call us to be differently than an air raid
siren, again rancid meat calls a starving person to be quite differently
than it calls the well fed person. 
<question of form>
Is it "fair" in this conversation to reduce such statements to actual
experience and look from that vantage as well as the words of the man?
<why I ask>
I'm one of the "heid for profit" folk altho I think "bastardized heid
for profit" more accutately conveys a reality and is less likely to call
you("kind reader") to be discounting the possible relevance of such
activities because it is not "clean heid" or pure philosophy.  In
discussing the "being of human being" it seems not inappropriate. 

We who participate or lead programs (either as volunteer's or paid) as
Landmark Education Corporation hold a couple of quotes out to inform us
as we engage in our activities.  I offer them to you as a way of better
understanding who we are,
	"To believe what has not occured in history will
	not occur at all is to argue disbelief in the 
	dignity of man"
		Mahatma Gandhi
and then
	"In our time, what is at issue is the very nature
	of humankind, the image we have of our limits and 
	possibilities.  History is not yet done with its
	exploration of the limits of what it means to be
	human."
		C. Wright Mills

I am out of my depth in this group and tend to listen and learn more
than speak up. I appreciate the time and thought offered by those
participating in these conversations. 
regards
rick


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