From: "Rafael Capurro, Professor" <CAPURRO-AT-hbi-stuttgart.de>
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 19:16:36 -0100
Subject: RE: Archetypes


Dear Michael Harrawood,

I found your Shakespeare example very exciting and illuminating, 
thanks! I reminded me the German pun between 'schwindel' (hoax) and 
'mir ist schwindlig' (vertigo, dizziness). This is a famous pun used 
by Kant and to which Heidegger refers by telling that a philosophers 
whom  thinking is not dizzy does not really think... (and in some way 
this dizziness implies always (?) some kind of hoax...
so the question is, if there is a possibility of a clear distinction 
between  Gloucester and Simpcox (where does this name come from? 
simplicity and cox...?). This is the (old Platonic) question about 
the relationship between name and thing. Some time ago I visited a 
colleague in Rutgers University who wrote many books on 'the language 
of the mind' and he was (is?) convinced, that there are some kind of 
'impressed' meanings in the mind... (the name of this colleague is, 
of course, Jerry Fodor). As I tried to put the argument about the 
creation (or construction...) of meaning in a historical and social 
manner (what is, indeed, a chair? remember the example given by 
Heidegger with regard to a person coming into the room where a 
lecture was given, and while seeing the piece of furniture used by 
the speaker, he is not able to recognize it _as_ such...)
What we see is alwas what we can see and what we can see is not just 
what we see but also what we c a n see (and still not see). Do you 
see what I mean? Can I see what you see?
Rafael


 





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