Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 23:53:16 +0100
From: jmd <jmd-AT-dasein.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: What is being said


To Bob/Diane:

>James.  James.  I was addressing the default configuration of being human.
I really don't know what you mean by "default configuration of being
human" -- sounds like the view of a cognitive scientist, trying to design a
neural net of not only one alleged module of cognition, but of the entire
living, breathing, animal that we are. And since I don't know what you
mean by that expression, simply telling me that you are referring to it in
your comments is not going to help me -- or others who may be as
ignorant as myself in this regard -- in trying to understand your remarks.
(NB: I wrote this "in conversation," as it were, with the post. I do now
"understand" what you mean by the expression. There is progress in
philosophy after all) 
>
>[listen james.  i really appreciate your response and interaction however,
>once again, i'm here as an "in the raw" heideggerian.  i'm not interested
>in intellectual debates.  i'm interested in working knowledge.  if you
>aren't able to accommodate that then i understand.  i am not a scholar (as
>is plain) nor am i interested in being an academician even tho i have great
>respect those that are.]
(Is this supposed to be some kind of ad hominem response?)
>
>
> .. thingification.  or being always already situated in ontic concerns.
>SuZ sheds light on the matter that the traditionals did "explain" in the
>context of an object/subject split.  this is without a doubt.  however SuZ
>illuminates being human in it's default mode and not till later does H
>address the end of philosophy and a new possibility of being human. 
>
So, are you criticising the H of SuZ? I see that Dasein as characterized
in SuZ  is what you mean by "default configuration of being human." So,
by this latter expression we could faithfully say that your view is that in
its default configuration, the human Exist, in SuZ's sense of the word.
So, you are criticising SuZ's characterization of the being of "being
human," the default configuration is not adequate.
>
>
>problem of other minds?  no james.  simply an unfolding of what it is to be
>human.
Do you mean, "to be human in the default configuration," i.e., "to Exist"
in SuZ language? However, I thought that this is the view which you
were out to criticise?

>>If you intend to refer to "the chair" as a node, if you will, constituted by
>>and individuated as the intersection of a variety of loosely coordinated
>>and uncoordinated Dasein comportments ("its related-ness"?), qua
>>Zeug, if you will,  there is no question of "proving" its 'existence'. This
>>"no-question" status, moreover, does not refer to the Kantian "scandal
>>of philosophy," but the scandalousness of that scandal as H saw it (in his
>>Geshicte des Zeitsbegriffe): that the scandal is that we even confer
>>meaningfulness upon and accord legitimate urgency to the so-called
>>question of "proof of an external world," "proof of the existence of
>>Other minds," or in this case, to a chair or a codasein. 
>

>you built this whole display on misunderstanding.  i was addressing
>default-ness as i explained above.
In light of my readings of your remarks above, can I read this remark of
yours here as meaning the following:
for Dasein and in its mode of being, viz., SuZ Existence, i.e., for the
human in its 'default configuration', by virtue of its "default-ness," the
everyday world is encountered, zunachst und zumeist, as
epistemologically problematic, as seeming to need, in some sense,
proof, validation, what have you.

Is that what you mean; and is that what you meant by your earlier
remarks? If so, then I can understand the wellsprings of our
misunderstanding: our readings of SuZ contradict each other. 

>i'm not a scholar.  as is obvious to you.  i said so clearly at the off
>set.  if that wasn't agreeable to you then why interact with me?
(Is this comment also some kind of ad hominem? Well, I also am not a
scholar. Once I was a professional fisherman, once a cook, once a
busboy, once an assistant librarian, once a day-laborer, once a tractor
driver, once an assistant mechanic, once an assistant engineer on a 350
ft. small-size ship. I'm not much more now, but what follows? I would
never endorse the following claim, and it is my hope that no other
person would either: "You would have seen it if you had believed." And
let's not allow agreement with a position to serve as a criterion for
understanding it.)

>>In light of your earlier comments, I read your usage of the term "mind"
>>here as designating an item which enjoys a species of 'existence' which
>>is 'separate from' the "things" in their mode of everydayness. Such an
>>item was precisely Descartes' res cogitans.

>exactly.  and THAT IS MY POINT!  always already being human is to "act"
>based on what is "made-up" and not what is so.  that is precisely the point.
>
Whatever ....
Regards,
jim


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