From: "henry sholar" <H_SHOLAR-AT-marta.uncg.edu>
Date:          Wed, 1 Jul 1998 12:44:57 EST
Subject:       Re: Mind & Body, One More Time



>from TMB:
>We have a certain extremism at work: on the factital end, mastery. On
>the..."other" end, abject, uncognizeable thrownness (the causes of moods
>are seen as beyond the cognitive powers of Dasien in Heidegger). 

no we don't.  these two views are read agst the text.

>Proximally and for the most part, neither of these is the case, I suggest.

so you reject what you first suggest.

>Sheer being in a mood, i.e., that it is that Dasein has a mood, is one
>thing, something that would refer us to Leibniz ("why is there something
>and not simply nothing?", and to Heidegger's topology relating the various
>existentialia). 

this initially makes little sense with regard 
to the discussion of Befindlichkeit, then, eventually, none.

>But the whence, wherefore, whither, hows, ways of moods
>(the very stuff of therapeutics)  are more open to exploration than
>Heidegger indicates. 

you are ignoring both the distinctions 
heidegger makes in the text
about moods and Befindlichkeit, and 
that distinction ongoing in this thread.

your mood-talk seems to sail the sea od solipsism.

>These, indeed, call for exploration and
>understanding, as does Heidegger's characterization of Dasein's
>resoluteness that is all too ready to shove aside so *many* things as
>idle, meaningless, insignificant, uncognizeable, etc. 

sailing has mach'd up to skimming and 
skipping across the surface; we're to jump into
resoluteness when Befindlichkeit/mood distinctions
ontological/ontic distinctions are still in shambles?
we press on, skipping into "authenticity" issues?

>The de-cognizing
>and, in a way, desubstantializing of mood's causes and our relation to
>them sets the stage precisely for will-to-power as resoluteness, which,
>futher, is cast against a mistakenly characterized Dasein as predominantly
>*irresolute* and lost in the "They", not to mention the "Him", a category
>which escaped Heidegger's thinking altogether. 

i just wish you'd couch your lyricism into a mode that 
approaches dialogue somewhere: a) with our discussion, or 2)
with the text (more seriously) or c) with itself, in distinguishing 
the plurality of meanings that one is forced to avail in order to
somehow 'submit' to your text.  

also, the shot at heidegger for
patriarchism is a little cheap & anachronistic doncha think?

thanks,
henry



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