Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 20:00:06 +0100
From: jim <jmd-AT-dasein.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Clarity


Anthony,
Your comments suggest to me that you read Bob/Diane's position as
espousing, vis-a-vis human Alltaglichkeit, precisely the variety of
characterization/interpretation which H takes pains to criticize in SuZ.

That is how I read his/her position. That restores my confidence. Just
maybe, I am not failing to see my mastery of the English language failing
me.
Cheers,
jim   

 In message <199805170447.XAA18529-AT-endeavor.flash.net>,
Anthony Crifasi <crifasi-AT-flash.net> writes
>Robert wrote:
>
>> i was characterizing how always already human
>> beings are situated.  not an enlightened philosophical rendition.
>> 
>> i'm talking about how it is for you in your life.  everyday life with the
>> wife and kids or whomever.  i assert that you see life (in that context) as
>> in a subject/object split.  you operate that way.  in your real life (as
>> you interact with live human beings--like at the store or at work)
>
>What do you think about the often used example of everydayness - 
>hammering? For example, while you are absorbed in hammering, it does 
>not appear to you as thing (a hammer) performing an action 
>(hammering) upon another thing (a board). Similarly, I do not 
>experience my wife as "an object as opposed to me, the subject" until 
>I enter into at least some level of reflection. Rather, she is simply 
>- my wife. And my kids are simply - my kids.
>
>Anthony Crifasi
>
>
>     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


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