From: "Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro" <capurro-AT-hbi-stuttgart.de> Subject: Re: Mind & Body, One More Time Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 17:45:14 +0200 Dear Mike, doing Heidegger-philology is one think, trying to think on paths that were opened (and closed) by H. is another... Of course, philology is sometimes useful. As I read M. Boss some 15 years ago I was impressed by his attempt to think (Freudian) Pschoanalysis within a Heideggeriam framework. I was particulary impressed by his attempt to de-subjectivize Freud's unconsciousness by giving a broader perspective within Heidegger's conception of _lethe_ (and _a-letheia_). The whole world-process, so to speak, became a _play_ of discovering and encovering, I mean the temporal process of past, present, and future. I visited Boss twice in Zuerich and I was particulary impressed by his _charisma_ . I will not forget how he _showed_ me (with a gesture) the _in-between_ between us and said: this is not nothing, as well as he said: this table there, it is too big to put it in your head, let us let the table there where it is. And some other anecdotes more that I see now, with more time perspective, more critically. I see also more critically his Grundriss (the one on dreams is still, I think, excellent). The way he tried to criticize Freud was in many ways not very convincing (as Freud is in many questions not convincing...), but it was an attempt (!). This is why I said to Tom, that the Zuercher School of Daseinsanalyse, i.e. what came up with Boss and after hin (!) is for me still an interesting attempt to put H. into (clinical) work (as I see some of the work of Carl Friedrich von Weizsaecker as an attempt to put H.'s temporality to work - in physics). As I was impressed by Boss I wrote a book (in fact later my Habilitation) trying to do something similar with regard to information stored in computers (and retrieved from them). The title of this book is: Hermeneutik der Fachinformation (Alber 1986). I see now this book partly as a failure, but, again, it was an (my) attempt (to connect H. with the problem of, at that time, information retrieval). I still think that H.'s re-questioning of some basics like truth (aletheia), freedom (as let be, _Seinlassen_), World (as network of meaning, where we are _thrown_) etc. are benchmarks for re-thinking much of what Western tradition took for granted (or what Western tradition, I know, this word is too broad..., took for granted concerning the kind of questions to be stated). I believe that in the Zuercher School there is a kind of ontic(clinic)-ontological questioning starting (mostly) from given _cases_ that is very unusal in the current H. philology. I appreciate this kind of research (by the way, I read regularly the Journal Daseinsanalyse, but I am not a psychoanalyst). There is at the moment a very interesting discussion concerning this kind of H. research and Lacan's (think for instance the question of time concerning unconsciousness, negated by Freud, or the question of the _subject_ as stated by Lacan, which comes very near to H.'s finitude etc.) So much for today. Thanks for asking me this. Rafael -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Mike Staples <mstaples-AT-argusqa.com> An: heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU <heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU> Datum: Freitag, 3. Juli 1998 17:45 Betreff: Re: Mind & Body, One More Time >Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro wrote: > >> You will find much more >> concrete support on this (I think this is what you are mainly looking >> for) >> if you read Medard Boss: Grundriss (again, in German; may be there is >> an >> English translation), which was also _re-viewed_ by H., and the works >> of the >> School of Daseinsanalyse from Zuerich. There you will surely find much >> more >> of what you want. > >You have mentioned Medard Boss several times now, Dr. Capurro, and I'll >have to admit that I read his "Foundations" and didn't think much of it. >It seemed to me at the time I read it that Heidegger's hand in editing >the work was quite present in the first half of the book that dealt >mainly with the issues of philosophy. But when the issues turned to >pulling this philosophy into a psychology, I felt almost as if Boss was >on his own. In Boss says early on that Heidegger was responsible for the >philosophical editing (and he makes a point out of it). > >I have been waiting patiently for the Zolikon lectures to be translated. >Your point about learning German is well taken. My own lack of German >has been a big dissapointment to me. I worked for the Siemens >corporation for some years, and had a great opportunity to dive into the >language but, somehow just didn't select that path. > >Are you particularly drawn to Boss because you have really dug into his >writing and he makes wonderful sense to you, or is it that he is just >the most likely game in town when it comes to an attempt to see how >Heidegger fits with psychology? I'm not being flippant here, I'm really >interested in your perspective. > >Michael S. > > > > --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005