From: "Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro" <capurro-AT-hbi-stuttgart.de>
Subject: Re: Mind & Body, One More Time
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 14:04:02 +0200


I have the impression that you read only half of the passage concerning
moods. I have now present p. 136 of the German edition.
H. states that Dasein may (could and should) become _factically_ master of a
(!) mood, but (!) that this does not mean that being-in-the-mood is not
primordial (to will and knowledge as ways of becoming master) and (!) that
this mastering only (!) happens on the basis of another mood
(_Gegenstimmung_) . Medard Boss writes: _Um-stimmung_ (p. 291 of his
Grundriss). There is no will-to-power concerning moods in this passage.
rafael
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Mike Staples <mstaples-AT-argusqa.com>
An: heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
<heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Datum: Dienstag, 30. Juni 1998 22:38
Betreff: Re: Mind & Body, One More Time


>TMB, I've gone back to our earlier posts after thrashed around a bit
>with the passage you sited concerning moods. Heidegger writes on page
>175 of SZ: "...Dasein can, should, and must, through knowledge and will,
>become master of its moods..." I recall when I first read this passage
>that it was puzzling. I highlighted it, intending to come back and think
>about it more. My response was that it did not seem consistent with my
>understanding of the rest of Heidegger's work, unless the initial sense
>of the passage was somehow not the sense in which it should probably be
>taken. Got a couple of responses from others, and now I am returning to
>pick up the context of your use of this reference to see if it still
>fits with my understanding of your context. My original "take" on your
>use of the passage was that it was out of line with the rest of
>Heidegger's work: That being master of one's moods referred to willfully
>mastering, taking control of, bringing into line those moods we have
>(like depression) in order to...whatever...live a better life, fit into
>our social structure better...whatever (it doesn't matter). So I am
>going back to see if I still think that is the way you were reading this
>passage (which I feel is the wrong way to read it). Note that I have
>some agreements and dissagreements with the other passages in your post,
>but this particular issue really grabbed me more than anything else.
>
>
>TMB wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Jun 1998, Mike Staples wrote:
>>
>> > TMB wrote:
>> >
>> > > For Heidegger, moods are understood as something to be *mastered*:
>>
>> > > "One
>> > > doesn't know" the whence and whither of moods, and I think this is
>> a
>> > > bit
>> > > of a mistake.
>
>Ah ha! So it was NOT that you agreed with this, you were saying that you
>thought this was Heidegger's position, and you were saying that you
>thought Heidegger was making a mistake here. And that makes sense, given
>the passages you sited.
>
>Ok. Thank you for bringing this passage back to my attention. And thank
>you Allen, Steve, and Henry for your valuable input. It seems that we
>are in agreement that, as Allen said, "Direct intervention" in one's
>Befindlichkeit is not the point..."      It does seem as though that
>passage can be easily missleading.
>
>Michael Staples
>
>
>
>     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



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