Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 22:54:41 -0700
From: Bob/Diane <guevara-AT-rain.org>
Subject: Re: Clarity


>> >Heidegger restricts "technology" to modes of 
>> >thought which are posterior to the world already being there, and 
>> >therefore posterior to language in the primordial sense.
>> 
>> referring to the sections you pointed out.  H speaks of logos not meaning
>> judgement or "taking a position" by either endorsing or rejecting.  he
>> further warns that the logos depends on staying clear of any concept of
>> truth construed in any sense of correspondence or accordance.
>> 
>> i say the technology is the result of precisely this "kind" of problem.  it
>> is "taking a position."  it is accordance.  and it is correspondence.  it
>> is logos as "representional" speaking that results in technology.  and it
>> "may" be posterior to language in the primordial sense.  however it is
>> neither anterior nor posterior when it itself is language in the
>> constitutive sense.  and once again it may be ultimately workable if it
>> discloses in the open-ness of Being.
>
>If I am reading this rightly, then I fail to understand what you meant
when you 
>criticized Heideggerians for their anti-technological stance. When Heidegger 
>speaks of technology, he is referring to what is posterior to language. If
you are 
>calling something prior to that technology, then you are simply using the
word 
>differently when you refer to that. The disagreement would therefore be
merely 
>semantic.


well anthony, i'm not so sure.  btw, i'm just for the first time
articulating my position in these terms.  i'm working it out in my dialogue
w/ you.  i appreciate it tremendously anthony.  if you could direct me to
other SuZ sections that may be pertinent to what i say, pls do.

i propose that it is possible to set up an environment, or more precisely,
an ecological niche that calls a person forth as being Being.  such an
environment would ground a person in the open-ness of Being by completing
all "why-ing."  completing all "yeh-but-ing."  such a person would be so
grounded in "saying."  saying and being are the same standing in the
nothing-ness of Being.  human being it's word.

such a being wouldn't always already be in a mode of inauthenticity.  it
would be authentic about it's inauthenticity and in being so continuously
generate completion.   being free to bring forth creatively from the
possibility of possibility.

such a human being would be an ideal expression.  in reality, where the
rubber meets the road, there are varying degrees of proficiency.  just as
one would be a varying degree of black belt in the martial arts.

so then human being in the default configuration would mostly be
inauthentic.  with moments of authenticity. (anthony - SuZ sections?)

in this transformed mode of being human, one would technologically
(ironically) generate authenticity.  the irony of irony is the possibility
of a calculated deployable authenticity.  this almost seems like another
one of those reversals H is famous for.

not quite semantics.  i say that i may be disclosing technology in it's
fullest sense.


Robert T. Guevara   | guevara-AT-rain.org
Electrical Engineer | guevarb-AT-mugu.navy.mil
Camarillo CA, USA   | http://www.rain.org/~guevara


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