Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 18:09:36 +0100 Subject: Re: holism & hermeneutics From: artefact-AT-t-online.de (Michael Eldred) Cologne, 03 February 1998 Daniel McGrady schrieb: > The individual shows itself at first according to a way of being. So > there must be individual in the mode of. 'The stone stones stonily' > brings together different facets of da-sein, even though derivatively from > the human that brings it out. The modal is working as the hupokeimenon, > that according to which it always presences if it is to be a stone. And > presencing accordingly it presences stonily. The whole analysis requires > working out the workings of sub-ject, ob-ject and pro-ject. Daniel, thank you for your thoughts. If ‘stonily’ is the hypokeimenon, i.e. underlies the presencing, isn’t it the ‘subject’? ‘Stonily’ then requires stone (ob-ject?) to presence in the open there of there-being. Is stonily presencing then a pro-ject thrown into the opening? > The sub-ject > subsumes under a modal, the project applies it and the object stands > against it. This requires an analysis that I think possibly surprised > Heidegger. It is certainly not a reciprocal relation of subject and > object. For the subject is not in immediate relation to the object, but > directs itself first to a modal in order to come under it, in order to > access the object and let it stand out according to the mode which is > presented. Such an analysis of subjectivity shows it to be a form of > submissiveness. Who is the subject? Recall that in medieval philosophy the roles of subject and object were precisely the reverse of how we think of them today. Could our modern human subject become subject to, subjugated to, submit to stonily presencing which is granted to it? Such stonily presencing would be a whole experience, holistic, thus bringing us back to ‘holism & hermeneutics’, and this whole experience would not centre on the thing, the stone, the what-that-is-presencing-itself-stonily, but more the mood/modality of stonily prensencing, which is not restricted to things called stones. Thus stony silence is also an equivalent way of stonily presencing, not simply a metaphor. (Heidegger says that there is metaphor only in metaphysics.) >Although Heidegger may have given the impression that > objects are accessed by projects. As though objects had a derivative mode > of being from human projects. Which holds that it is the subject that > addresses the object. But then this leads to an anthropocentric bearing > upon things which Heidegger sought to deny. Such a view is more akin to > Sartre. H. did see that SuZ was still too close for comfort to the metaphysics of subjectivity. That’s why Dasein has to step back further to see that its projects are only possible because of the granting. > This is one reason why I said earlier that 'sustainability' is > not Heideggerean. It is Sartrean because it gives objects their being in > terms of pour-soi, in this case pour-nous. Take the environment as a huge > larder and you can still treat it under sustainability. Yes, indeed, the notion of 'sustainability' is metaphysical through and through (cf. the recent contribution from Rozelle, Sydney). Even the word ‘sustain’ means ‘to keep a hold’. > The method (methodos - [meta kai hodos] according to the way) must be > ontologically open in that it is the way of accessing the stone as well as > providing the grounds for this x presenting itself in the form of this > mode, according to this way. Methods are abstractions from an original > opening of the thing, so that now that we know how it opens, we can subject > ourselves to that way, for the sake of opening it up in the same way. > Methods, ways, then form part of the clearing. Ways in which we open, > ways in which we know things open according to, ways which we merely have > to subject, submit ourselves to so that they will open. If you go that way, this will happen? How is this different from the way (methodology) of _techne_ and technology, which are also knowledge of the ways of getting at what one has in view, i.e. what is the difference between submitting to a way and using a way? > Modals are merely the how of the presencing, which we hold open knowingly > as ways in which we may presence others. Presencing always requires > being-there. Modals have no being-there. They are no-things. There is > nowhere they are. Although if you want to presence them then you have to > have to do so by earthing them, even when you want to keep them in abstract > form. Thus 'the way' is present in the form of scratchings. So the way leaves an earthy trace of it having once been in modal resonance? Da-sein would then be, in the first place, an attunement with the moods of modality, things being merely props. 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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005