Date: Sun, 2 Feb 97 17:25 +0100
From: artefact-AT-t-online.de (M.Eldred_artefact)
Subject: RE: "I", proper names, etc. 


Cologne, 01 February 1997

_Chairete panta_ 
(Dear all),

I'm not sure what "in each case" is translating in "Dasein is in each case 
mine", since I can't find the passage, but I suspect it is the little word "je", 
as in e.g. 

"Existentielles Verstehen besagt: sich entwerfen auf die je eigenste faktische 
Moeglichkeit des In-der-Welt-sein-koennens." (SZ § 60, second paragraph)

Existence is always indivisibly one's own. German "je" has many different 
meanings. In SZ Heidegger uses it to individualize Dasein--irrevocably and 
ineluctably. But this is nothing new to you all.

Henry has a good way of putting it:
>>"mine" = henry sholar's (literally), and not a theoretical subject (psyche, 
cogito, ego, etc.)<<

Each individual existence is called by its non-substitutable name, something I 
have elsewhere (in the context of a phenomenology of being some-who) called 
"Eigengenanntheit". As an individual I carry my ownmost, non-interchangeable, 
proper name.

On a different tangent Allen Scult writes: 
>>Anyway I can't imagine English being as fruitful a language for thinking 
being, no way no how.  Look at the length Ezra Pound, James Joyce, etc. had to 
go to find hidden treasure in the language, and it still is not so much in words 
themselves as in the music and the rhythms of its phrasings.<<

Yes, it's strange. What has this to do with the circumstance that the 
Anglo-Saxon mind-set abhors speculation, unless there's a prospect of making 
money? Hegel is famous for his remark that the English do not have any 
speculative propensity--and the animosity is still felt today in both 
directions, with the English-cum-Anglosaxons calling always for down-to-earth 
common sense. 

It is striking that both Greek and German have strong forms, whereas in English 
they have become much much weaker, in favour of English's penchant for endlessly 
soaking up vocabulary from other languages. 

And Allen further: 
>>H claims that Ousia meant "Anwesen, Hab und Gut, Vermoegen, Besitzstand"<<

So being and having, _pace_ Erich Fromm, is not a terribly earthmoving 
distinction. Nor is the popular gloss of being thought verbally instead of 
substantively, although it probably takes us a bit further. H's. interpretation 
here doesn't bend the Greek and is non-controversial, as far as I know. 

-mk:
>>i think one would be hard-pressed 
to find many passages in which heidegger 
indicates "the absurdity of engaging [his] 
thought discursively". <<

Phew! I can keep on thinking, after all. Isn't thinking a kind of activity 
(praxis), certainly very different from baking a cake, ploughing a field, 
engaging in politics, selling underwear in a department store, but a practice 
nevertheless? (Cf. Humanismus-Brief, first page.) 

hen:
>>a kind of heideggerian ebonics<<

What's that??

On being-together (OE gaed: companionship, fellowship, union; Du. gade, MDu 
ghegade: companion, comrade, consort, mate): "together" is related to gathering. 
It is first the gathering of beyng that gathers us together and allows us to be 
(Seinkoennen, potentia, dynamis) companions, comrades, consorts, mates. 


Regards,
Michael
\\\    ° '~': '' ///  artefact text and translation °~ \ ' ) ''' | .  \ - °
.{.\ ~. '  ~ { } .\ :  ~    /// made by art ///     _ °/ ~ : ~:~ \./''/
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/   {.\ ~. '  ~ { } .\ : artefact-AT-t-online.de 
                      ' ///  °    }.\ ~. '  ~           Dr Michael Eldred 


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