Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 06:18:16 +0100
From: jim <jmd-AT-dasein.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Dasein, universals, particulars


May I ask some questions here?ologne 02 July 1998

> In other words, Dasein may not necessarily be related to being-human.
Eg, with human who are in coma? 
> There are many questions here:
> - what is the meaning of the term: _Seinsweise_ ? does it make any sense to
> differentiate _Seinsweisen_ (the Seinsweise of the dog is to _dog-ify_?!),
> whereas science admits only _eigenschaften_
> - is there a common ground between the ways is _being-in_ of living beings?
> (cf. H. text on plants, animals and human beings regarding it openness, and
> H. remark on the specific richness of the openness of non-human living
> beings)
If Universals can be interpreted as "ways 'things' are with entities," as
different kinds of 'Waywardness', then, couldn't Dasein be seen, again,
as a Universal. I know it is not a Universal, but this unclarity remains.
> - the relationship (foundational?) between Dasein and consciousness: we can
> be consious because we are open to the world (not the other way around)
What does the "because" here mean? It is not an 'ontic' "because," like,
eg, cause, right? But it is essential, right? There is no worldless
consciousness, right? 
> - if Dasein is a _neutral_ way of being: can there be an _artificial_
> Dasein, for instance, or a non-human Dasein?
In what sense "neutral"? In SuZ "Dasein" is specifically introduced thus:
"Dieses Seiende, das wir selbst je sind und das unter anderem die
Seinsmoglichkeit des Fragens hat ...," and so, it seems, that unless a
creature CAN be recognized as "one of us" and CAN "inquire," then it
is not Dasein. If a creature can 'inquire', then it already has
understanding. Ie, the possibility of Inquiry is and that understanding is
holistic, are the same, aren't they?
Eg, can a dog inquire about where its bone is, or a snail inquire about
where delicious leave are, eg, 'is the(my?) bone buried under the tree',
are the delicious leaves over there? If they can, then musn't the dog and
snail understand 'food', 'bone','tree', 'under', there, here? And if they
can understand these, then mustn't they also understand many many
other things? And so forth?? Ie, musn't their understanding look like our
own?

We look at dogs eyes; they look at our eyes. They were never taught to
look at our eyes; we were never taught to look at the eyes of the living.
A creatures 'being alive' seems to 'speak out' from the eyes. But the
'experience' of "eye contact" seems very different among humans and
between humans and animals??? I "know" Dasein when I "meet the
eyes" of Dasein; but I cannot 'meet the eyes' of a dog, or a snail? (when
people play really well at being a mannequin, and we cannot tell are
they Dasein, we look and stare at the eyes, and wait until the eyes
speak (I don't mean to suggest anything like Sarte's 'the Look', but that
is a fact.)).  (Dogs are very very special; they have lived among humans
for thousands of years. I canot look a  snail in the eyes). 
 
> Anyway it seems to me that Dasein concerns a specific way of
> being-in-the-world, but that H. identifies this with human-being without
> excluding other possibilities (or at least without excluding a conceptual
> difference between Dasein as a _structure_ and Dasein as _being human_)
If Dasein-as-structure must have 'inquiry' as a possible way of being,
then whatever is Dasein must be "similar" to our Dasein??? Eg, isn't the
alien ET Dasein? But it isn't human, and not Dasein-as-human?? But
whatever has Dasein-as-structure must have a body! Dasein-as-
structure must be open to a world, must be spatial; but it does not have
to be human?? 

Could a robot be Dasein-as-structure????
jim


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