Subject: RE: Message to Greg
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 11:59:45 -0500 



Hi Greg, good questions.

> I'm not sure if you're
> saying that there is some ideally correct alignment or if you're saying
> that "openness to Being" should be optimized.
> 
I guess I am saying that there is an ideally correct alignment to the
openness to Being. And "Yes", I know I'm walking on thin ice here. But I
think the indication of several of the Dreyfus articles we have discussed in
the past come to the conclusion that Heidegger is not a radical
relativist...that there is a "Better" way of being that opposes a "Worse"
way of being. The "Better" way of being revolves around an openness to Being
(open also to its closedness -- which is a little confusing and prompted one
of my recent questions answered by Michael E). I suppose in this sense there
is an optimization of the openness to Being.

>  I guess I also need you to
> make clear what you mean when you say "openness to Being" and I'm not sure
> if you are talking about the therapist's openness or the client's.
> 
So I am still on thin ice here, Greg. But what i had in mind was openness to
the phenomena of Being that are either revealed or concealed, for the client
or the therapist. Perhaps there should be no distinction in the sense of
"This is mine" and "This is yours", at least in the traditional sense. The
"Mine" or "Yours" would need to manifest as part of the phenomena
themselves, not as a preconceived searching out of "Your problem" versus "My
enlightenment". So, lets say that within a meeting, the image of a fire
hydrant reveals itself. As Hillman says, you follow the image
hermeneutically, phenomenologically, rather than stamping the image
imediately with some idea about fire-hydrants symbolizing some issue you
have with your father.


Michael Staples



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