File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_1998/heidegger.9812, message 217


From: Michael Staples <mps-AT-nomos.com>
Subject: Message to Greg
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 17:15:31 -0500


So Greg,

I was thinking first about our dialogue concerning meaning, and how I had
said that meaning seems to midigate suffering. I indicated that I got this
from Edward Edinger and that it seemed reasonable. When you think of a loved
one dying, for instance, the meaninglessness of his or her death seems
somehow mitigated by some sort of meaningful purpose being discovered (or
imposed, as with his or her death being actually to his or her benefit...as
in "God wanted this to happen"). But after kicking this around for some
time, I came to feel that the hypothesis that the sheer insertion of meaning
(built around the "As" structure) into one's understanding isn't really a
mitigating factor of suffering. When you think of it, such meaning can go
either way...it could have been, for instance, that a loved one dies in a
heroic manner, just to have the "real" meaning of the event turn sour -- as
with someone dying in a war that becomes unpopular or discounted. The
important factor isn't JUST meaning, but meaning with an upturning feature
of some sort. So, I just wanted to pass this on. I had simply "bought" the
meaning package without really opening to it adequately. Thus, our dialogue
was influenced by my premise concerning meaning.

Secondly, I was thinking about authenticity again. I was thinking that if we
define the authentic, ontologically, as an alignment with the Open, then
practically (clinically) the only value judgement we can make concerning
ontic events with respect to authenticity is whether or not such ontic
events help or hinder such an alignment with an openness to Being. We would
have to take each conception one by one --e.g., "We need to report child
abuse", "We need to aleviate suffering", "We need to socialize people into
the collective vew of normalcy", etc. -- and determine first how persuing
them influences our ontological alignment. If it does influence such an
alignment, then we can make determinations about how much, what difference
does it make, and so on. If it does not influence such an alignment, then
whether or not we adopt such a persuit becomes ontologically arbitrary, and
defaults to some ontic value-system (legal, social, psychiatric,
medical...whatever).

How bout that?

Michael Staples


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005