Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 07:49:58 -0700 From: Mike Staples <mstaples-AT-argusqa.com> Subject: Re: Meaning GBORGERSON-AT-delphi.com wrote: > What I'm wondering is how > Heidegger would handle meaning as significance that is personal, > perhaps > even latent, in Merleau-Ponty's, formulation, sedimented as in > Husserl's > formulation or unconscious, as in Freud's formulation. I would be interested to hear Michael E's comment here, especially with regard to significance as "personal". I wonder what that means..."personal"? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just wondering about this sort of distinction. As I understand it, significance is drawn from our shared background of understanding--the horizon for Being-in-the-world. Is it then made "personal"? Does personal mean that only I experience the phenomenon? Or does personal mean that a given phenomenon is especially significant? Perhaps some guidance here would help. > Husserl and > Merleau-Ponty would allow for meaning that is unmediated by language, > but > I don't think that is possible for Heidegger. Greg, doesn't the difference here hang on what we mean by "language"? If by language you only mean a grammar, or a system of communication, then there would certainly be a distinction between what Heidegger means by language. With Heidegger, as I understand him, there is no need for an experience to be mediated by language because the experience is itself language. Below you are pointing to interpretation through languag as if the experience sits on one side while the interpretation sits on the other. Again, we return here to my lengthy battle with Henry about interpretation-all-the-way-down. I think I have always sided with Michael E's view here, but for what appears to be kind-of-sort-of technical reasons having to do with ferreting out the different usages of understanding versus interpretation. But I also see the use of Henry's point about interp-all-the-way-down when you begin attempting to make such clean distinctions between interpretation and experience as below. > So I'm still floundering > around with this one because I think that some forms of human > experience > are not mediated through language, they certainly could be interpreted > > through language. Michael S. --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005