Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 02:02:28 -0500 (CDT)


Robert,

Thanks for your reply.  Allow me to respond:

>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.

Notice that I have not claimed that any of your positions are wrong because
I see them as being in conflict with Heidegger.  I too am interested in
"working knowledge" if this means "practical" (praxis) 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.  

My statement is not to be read "condemn or whatever", but rather "confusion
or whatever".  I'm not trying to be flippant here.  I am merely trying
to indicate my reservation about characterizing your position as one
which sees the problem with metaphysical thinking (i.e., calculative
thinking or "Why?" questions) as a "confusion."  The "whatever" is meant
to show that I realize that mine is perhaps a crude characterization of
your position.  But it seems clear from your earlier posts that you
do see _something_ wrong with this type of thinking (i.e., that it is at
least inferior to some preferred way of proceeding, e.g., by way of asking 
"what?" instead of "why?").

>[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?]

No, this does not ring true, at least not in any important sense which
deserves to be singled out.  In other words, I don't think that I am 
having a private conversation with my own "thoughts."  Of course, 
conversation is stifled by this medium which proceeds by way of stops 
and starts, and with which it is difficult to understand what others
say (as opposed to face-to-face conversation).  But then we're all in the
same boat, and you're having just as private a conversation.  But I don't
think that this line is very promising, and it's not to the point
anyway.  It seems, on the other hand, that you are making an unwarranted
and rather insulting comment here.

Apart from that, "usefulness" is not the issue here.  I am questioning
your equation of "why?" questions with metaphysical thinking.  Metaphysical
thinking, for Heidegger, is of course "useful" in the sense that 
technology is "useful".  This is the essence of technology, according to
Heidegger.  But I just want to know if it is right to say that "why?" 
questions are paradigmatic of this sort of thinking.

>...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.

See my comment above.

>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.

The important question at this point, it seems, is whether all "reasons"
are of the sort that lead to "thingification".  Perhaps you could direct
me to the Heidegger passage you have in mind to see what he thinks about
this.

>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.

I confess I don't know what you're getting at here.

>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.

Do all "what?" questions avoid "intellectual" answers.  I guess I don't
really think that the "Why?"/"What?" dichotomy captures anything
essential.

I wrote:
>>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.

I'm not sure I can make your "investment" pay off, but I think that my
original post still makes some valid points and raises questions I don't
think you've answered.

>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 ---

Let me know if you think I'm talking to my own "thoughts" or have otherwise
failed to understand you.

Shane Denson


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