Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 21:14:25 -0700
From: Bob/Diane <guevara-AT-rain.org>
Subject: Re: why ask why?


Hi Shane.  thank you for your note.  as i've indicated, for me "experience"
precedes Heidegger.  i'm essentially here to sharpen my understanding.  i'm
serious when i request education.  i'm very interested in working knowledge.


>What is it that you take the question "Why?" to seek as an appropriate
>answer?  It seems to me that the question(s) "Why?" is answered in
>various ways in various contexts.  Also, and more importantly, the 
>predominant presupposition behind the question (i.e., the range of
>acceptable answers which are layed out in asking the question) seems
>to have changed through history.  For example, "Why?" questions were
>"legitimately" answered in scientific contexts once with teleological
>explanations, but no longer.  This seems to be an important change in
>the meaning (?) of the question.  My point is that, until we are clear
>on what the question presupposes (that is _if_ it presupposes unambig-
>uously), we should not (as you have) condemn the question as indicating
>some sort of metaphysical confusion (or whatever).


condemn.  or whatever.  i think that it is important to understand that
i've repeatedly said that "why?" based thought or ratiocination is very
useful.  

[aside:  this is very interesting for me.  i've clearly said (repeadedly)
that "why?" based thinking is there to stay as i see it.  and that it may
be very useful.  never have i condemned it.  it's almost as if shane is
having a relationship with his own "thoughts" of me and not w/ me directly.
 does this ring true shane?]

...hardly confusion or "whatever."  H says that calculative thinking at
best "molds" or "manipulates."  it is technology.  so then is technology
useful?  i think so Shane.  after all i'm an engineer.

for me, "why?" based thinking leads to reasons.  (H specifically claims
that reasons are given by beings being in a manner given by metaphysical
thought.)  *and* that inevitably leads to "thingification."  the occuring
world of thingly things.  objects as separate from subject.

i say that a "thing" is very rigidly "defined."
i can bring about evidence to support it.
i can validate it.
it is self-consistent.
it is calculated.
is it "useful?"  it may or may not be.

for me, "what" based thinking discloses being.  precisely through praxis do
we "know" beings.  "what?" isn't an "intellectual" excercise for me.  it is
"being in the world."  it is a creative (brings forth from nothing) event
and not one of simply molding and shaping through calculative reasoning.


>Furthermore, I am
>interested in knowing whether you see yourself as aligned with Heidegger's
>positions in these regards.  After all, doesn't a "What?" question
>usually get answered in terms of a being (and hence NOT Being)?  It 
>seems that Heidegger's position is the exact opposite of yours, for
>you favor replacing "Why?" questions with "What?" questions in order
>to get at Being.  But Heidegger, it seems, would have us ask "Why?" in
>a less superficial way than has been traditionally done, and end our
>fixation with "What?" questions.


Shane i would love some education.  really.  ...given what i said above.
i want maximum return on my time investment.

all the best,


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 ---