Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:34:36 -0700
From: Bob/Diane <guevara-AT-rain.org>
Subject: Re: 


>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.



that's all i ask as well shane.  once again, my apologies.  i'm rather on
the run.  i will only touch on your questions for now.



>>>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?").



no.  nothing wrong.  technology either "works" or it doesn't or not so
well.  there is nothing wrong with it.  BTW what i find of even greater
interest is "thingifcation" of people.  so it's *not just* technology in my
previous sense.  i see the default way of being as being thingified.  I am
that way.  you are that way.  it is that way.  like a calculated result.

i'm a jerk.  period.  or i'm confused. (e.g. of calculated way of adapting
to life)

so there isn't anyTHING wrong.  it just has degrees of workability.



>>[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.



hey buddy.  sorry.  i hope you read my other note.  i'm up for good
behavior from now on.



>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.



maybe your answer lies in the consideration of "speaking" as thought or
"writing" as thought.  in which case, what you normally may consider
thinking is really happening as it happens.  as opposed to a type of
contemplation.



>>...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.


no i can't.  not right now shane.  i'm on the run w/ my family. (best to
you and yours btw)



>>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.



what i'm saying is that in the world of thingly things in all their
thingly-ness, we have what you might consider "concrete" evidence of the
existence of a bus, for example.  and you would be wise to hold a bus that
way.  as this thing that can  moooosh you flat.  is it a thing?  .. in the
sense i sketched above?  most definitely.

i think that part of the problem here is the lack of a larger context.  i
propose that our world is "growing."  it is "unfolding." (as opposed to
being constructed by some external agency) there is manipulation  of what
is and there is eventuation of what wasn't.  this is all in a very crude
sense because we are calculatively considering in the conversation that we
are having.  we are "intellectualizing."  so this is a crude map of the
territory.  



>>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.



see above comment on speaking and writing.



>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.

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 ---