Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 15:33:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gary Moore <gottlos45-AT-mail.com>
Subject: RE: EVERYDAY WITS REDEUX


> ------Original Message------
> From: Thom <beingthere-AT-britannica.com>
> To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Sent: April 26, 2000 4:22:43 PM GMT
> Subject: Re: Everyday wits
>
>
> On Wed, 26 April 2000, Gary Moore wrote:
> >
> > BEING AND TIME takes a very radical view of dasein's authentic
appropriation of tradition which, by necessity, completely takes it apart
and puts it back together again....


THOM WHITBY:
> Does this happen in _Being and Time_, or is this what BT was *supposed* to
> do, but Heidegger couldn't do it, at the "moment" of BT, but rather did
the
> deconstruction / reconstruction over the next two decades?
>
RE: GARY C MOORE:
It happens in B&T but not with the terms
"deconstruction/reconstruction". What he says is, "Authentic existentiell
understanding is so far from extricating itself from traditional
interpretedness that it always grasps its chosen possibility in resolution
from that interpretation and in opposition to it, and yet again for it.
"The resoluteness in which Dasein comes back to itself discloses the
actual factical possibilities of authentic existing IN TERMS OF THE HERITAGE
which that resoluteness TAKES OVER as thrown. Resolute coming back to
throwness involves HANDING ONESELF OVER to traditional possibilities,
although not necessarily AS traditional ones . . . . Only the anticipation
of death drives every chance and 'preliminary' possibility out. Only being
free FOR death gives Da-sein its absolute goal and knocks existence into its
finitude.  . . . . This is how we designate the primordial occurrence of
Da-sein that lies in authentic resoluteness in which it HAND ITSELF DOWN to
itself, free for death, in a possibility that it inherited and yet has
chosen" (German 383-4, Stambaugh 351).
This is ambiguous but necessarily implies a choosing of what is
possible as acceptable tradition ("although not necessarily AS traditional
ones"). Death, one's ownmost, determines the meaning of tradition ("death
gives Da-sein its absolute goal") which logically implies a reconfiguration
of that tradition as one's ownmost. In other words, tradition can exist for
dasein only as in its own image. This is made clearer by another quote about
historiography:
"Rather, even HISTORIOGRAPHICAL disclosure temporalizes itself OUT OF
THE FUTURE. The "SELECTION" of what is to become a possible object for
historiography HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE in the factical existentiell CHOICE of
the historicity of Da-sein, in which historiography first arises and IS
uniquely.
"The historiographical disclosure of the 'past' is grounded in fateful
retrieve and is so far from being 'subjective' that it alone guarantees the
'objectivity'  of historiography. For the objectivity of a science is
primarily regulated by the question whether that science can unconcealedly
CONFRONT understanding with the being belonging to it as its theme in the
primordiality of its being. In no science are the 'universal validity' of
standards and the claims to 'universality' that are demanded by the they and
its common sense LESS possible criteria of 'truth' than in authentic
historiography" (German 395, Stambaugh 360-1).
". . . The historicity of Da-sein, in which historiography first arises
and IS uniquely" explicitly identifies the 'singulare tantum' of dasein as
history itself as is also explicitely stated
at 388/355: ". . . what is historical is being-in-the-world. THE OCCURENCE
OF HISTORY IS THE OCCURENCE OF BEING-IN-THE-WORLD". "Historiographical
disclosure . . . guarantees the 'objectivity' of historiography" and thus
puts the terms 'subjective', 'objective' and 'universal validity' out of
business, replaced by disclosure of being-in-the-world or dasein which is
the only necessary concept. "The authentic retrieve of a possibility of
existence that has been--the possibility that Da-sein may choose its heroes
. . ."(385/352) means that dasein explicitly determines what tradition is
going to be like. "We MUST presuppose truth, it MUST BE as the disclosedness
of Da-sein, just as Da-sein itself MUST always be as my own and this
particular Dasein" (228/209-10), i.e., the 'singulare tantum' of dasein. "IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESSENTIAL KIND OF BEING APPROPRIATE TO DA-SEIN, ALL
TRUTH IS RELATIVE TO THE BEING OF DA-SEIN" (227/208). So therefore it is
implicit in dasein's authenticity that it must by necessity take tradition
as retrieved apart and put it back together again to make it accord with its
"absolute goal", its ownmost death.


GARY C MOORE:
> > as dasein actually
> > knows it....
>
THOM WHITBY:
> As Dasein actually knows? Or as Dasein *can* come to know it? "Actually",
> Dasein is for the most part unaware of its traditionality, in fallen
> everydayness? As you say:
>
GARY C MOORE:
> >... instead of the 'everyday' passive acceptance of a vague theme of
> > what tradition is that never examines it rationally in detail or judge
> even  if it fits together coherently.
>
THOM WHITBY:
> It's not plausible that:

GARY C MOORE:
> > from an
> > authentic point of view .... it can be
> > just as stupid or intelligent as inauthenticity
>
RE: GARY C MOORE:
It is plausible because: "Wanting-to-have-a-conscience resolves itself
for being guilty" (305/282),i.e., it makes a choice, assumes responsibility
for it, and cannot turn time back and change the choice to the other
possibility. ". . . As a potentiality-of-being, it always stands in one
possibility or another; it is constantly NOT other possibilities and has
relinquished them in its existentiell project. As thrown, the project is not
only determined by the nullity the ground but is itself AS PROJECT
essentially NULL. Again, this definition by no means signifies the ontic
property of being 'unsuccessful' or of 'no value' but an existential
constituent of the structure of the being of projecting. This nullity
belongs to the being-free of Da-sein for its existentiell possibilities. But
freedom IS only the choice of the one, that is, in bearing the fact of not
having chosen and not being able also to chose the others . . . CARE IS IN
ITS ESSENCE THOROUGHLY PERMEATED WITH NULLITY. Care, the being of Da-sein,
thus means, as thrown project: being the (null) ground of a nullity. And
that means that DA-SEIN AS SUCH IS GUILTY if our formal existential
definition of guilt as being-the-ground of a nullity is valid" (285/262-3)
which means, even though within authenticity, you can make the 'wrong'
choice according to context, regret it, and wish it were otherwise. But that
is an "existentiell", "factical" choice which must be within the world of
the everyday always threatening to disperse into the 'They' self, thereby by
simply making a choice whether 'right' or 'wrong' dasein, as it were falls
again, because it can only preserve its 'innocence' in the nullity of its
ground before it factically begins to determine itself by its choices. And
within a nullity there is no standard of values, no ethics to guide you, so
whatever your choice, you assume absolute responsibility for it. This is why
Sartre's term "bad faith" is so good, because no matter what choice you
make, you have turned down the others, and there is no justification, no
ground (since that ground is a nullity), to say the choice you made is
'better' than the ones rejected. The only 'justification' is in the context
of the everyday world of the 'They' self. Ergo, it is made in "bad faith".
>From the resolve and reticence of authenticity a choice must be made, and
for these reasons that choice can be "as stupid or intelligent as
inauthenticity".


THOM WHITBY:
> Are you presuming an "everyday" (rationalistic) sense of "practical wits"?
>
RE:GARY C MOORE:
At the 'they' self's 'best', yes.

GARY C MOORE:
> >: after all in the everyday world one must keep one's practical wits
sharp -- tradition is a trash  pile,

THOM WHITBY:
> Tradition is not a trash pile. It is a landscape that has some trash (as
> goes life). Some trash makes good landfill. Some landfill will make a poor
> basis for new building. Etc.
>
RE: GARY C MOORE:
Of course tradition comes to you as a trash pile. It has neither
order nor meaning till you give them to it. It comes you you helter-skelter,
what you will judge trivial and what you will judge important all thrown
together in trash equality. That is, unless you say it comes from God . . .
and I would rather not get into that.

GARY C MOORE:
> >... and stays that way with the 'They' self.

THOM WHITBY:
> Yes, if one stays with the mass.

RE: GARY C MOORE:
It must be nice to be fantastically rich and able to cut yourself
completely off from the world--as well, of course, as being a baron.

GARY C MOORE:
> > 'Everyday' tradition is something one nods to with respect but otherwise
> > ignores...
>
THOM WHITBY:
> I don't.

RE: GARY C MOORE:
Nod to or ignore? Or both? Then what?

GARY C MOORE:
> >...because, except for politicians and preachers (the distinction
> > between them is diminishing), it is useless and cumbersome.
>
THOM WHITBY:
> I regret to read you feel that way.

RE: GARY C MOORE:
Yes, it is an illness isn't it?

GARY C MOORE:


> >That is why we have so many 'Christians' that will convert you by hook or
crook who have never read more than five or six whole pages of the Bible and
otherwise  only know snippets.
>
THOM WHITBY:


So, show them a Christianity that will awaken them.

RE: GARY C MOORE:
One of the things I gained from studying Indian philosophy and religion was
the clear realization that almost each one was written by a distinctly
different author with sometimes an extremely distinct point of view. For
instance, Job’ in the King James (still in many ways the best version: the
translators were both extremely well educated AND honest)13:15,”Though he
slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before
him” that could serve as a good definition of a number of Greek tragedies,
as well as having a God that could almost have come out of the Iliad. And
then there is also Mark in that regard, as it survived, without the
additions at the end. Taken by itself, and not interpreted away by comparing
it to gospels with a completely different purpose, it is fascinating.
>
GARY C MOORE:


> >In other words, 'everyday' tradition can be anything you want


> > it to be and justify any act you wish to commit ....


>
THOM WHITBY:


> Yet, an authentic life is not thoughtless.


>
RE: GARY C MOORE:
An inauthentic life can be extremely thoughtful also, both in kind deeds and
in intelligent, well worked out practical thinking. After all, for one
thing, that is what technology is all about.

GARY C MOORE:


> > Heidegger after the rector speech seems to take on this 'They' self
sense
> of
> > tradition to a large extent, justifying Mr. Whitby's comment.
>
THOM WHITBY:


> I disagree. Heidegger's "Grecian" formula for German nationalism was quite


sophisticated.

RE: GARY C MOORE:
I would like to hear more about this. It would be interesting to put the
‘evil’ and the ‘genius’ back together again into something more interesting
than another bureaucrat gone amok.

THOM WHITBY:
After the rectorship, he withdrew into his own work.


>
RE: GARY C MOORE:
As far as he ‘withdrew’, he had no choice. But he made several, now famous,
political remarks in his lectures, at least wore his party button in Rome in
1937 when Karl Lowith talked to him, and maintained his party membership up
to the day the party ceased to exist. In other words, he never ceased to be
a Nazi as far as anybody really knows.

GARY C MOORE:


Why did  Heidegger need his fellow Germans so much?



THOM WHITBY:


> Did he? Seems to me, he was always the Stranger.


>
RE: GARY C MOORE:
Not when he was wearing his German peasant’s suit, not when he was wearing
his Hitler moustache, not when he was making political speeches, not when he
is talking about “the essence of the people” in the Beitrage or
Contributions, not when he is talking about “the inner greatness” of the
Nazi cause. Otherwise, yes, I agree with you, and hopefully you can prove
you are more right than I am.

GARY C MOORE:


> > He had formulated a philosophy of almost solipsistic uniqueness in the
concept of dasein (I call it the  "solipsistic aporia", i.e., it is absurd I
created the world because I  find  myself thrown into it unwillingly but, on
the other hand, as an authentic  dasein, my relation to it verges on the
solipsistic).
>
THOM WHITBY:


> I believe there's no basis for this view in Heidegger's work.
>
RE: GARY C MOORE:
I just quoted a number of passages strongly supporting just such a point of
view. And on top of that, there is this: “Constituted by disclosedness
Da-sein is essentially in the truth. Disclosedness is an essential kind of
being of Da-sein. “THERE IS” [“GIBT ES”] TRUTH ONLY INSOFAR AS DA-SEIN IS
AND AS LONG AS IT IS. Beings are discovered only WHEN Da-sein IS, and only
AS LONG AS Da-sein IS are they disclosed. Newton’s laws, the law of
contradiction, and any truth whatsoever , are true only as long as Da-sein
IS. Before there was any Da-sein, there was no truth; nor will there be any
after Da-sein is no more” (226/208). Even though he says here, before there
was any Da-sein . . .”, Heidegger in the above quotes defines dasein as
unique and always “mine” which precludes “any’ being plural here. And, as
well, he defines dasein also as the “ownmost” numerous times throughout B&T.

GARY C MOORE:


> > In BEING AND TIME he is more like Shankara achieving illumination and
dropping the whole world as  a "mere illusion".
>
THOM WHITBY:


> Yes, I suppose.


>
RE: GARY C MOORE:
At least from my point of view here, he would truly be a stranger.

GARY C MOORE:


> >Then in 1933 everything changes. Am I wrong?


>
THOM WHITBY:
> Yes, I suppose.
>
RE: GARY C MOORE:
Very lame. But since I would also have to prove my point, and I find that
very tiresome right now as well as the immanent interruption of the real
‘everyday’ world I MUST participate in, unlike you baron, I must cut it off.

GARY C MOORE:


> > Of course I


> > am. Show me.


>
THOM WHITBY:


> You're from Missouri, right?


>


RE: GARY C MOORE:
Too many trees there, too much water, too many hills. There are real
intellectuals there in the big city and they scare me.

THOM WHITBY:


> Your friendly Mr. Whitby


>


RE: GARY C MOORE:
Your friendly Mr. Moore (MR? People only say that when they want money from
me.)
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
>
> Get free e-mail at http://www.britannica.com
>
>
> --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
> ........................................................
> iWon.com       http://www.iwon.com     why wouldn't you?
> ........................................................
>

........................................................ 
iWon.com       http://www.iwon.com     why wouldn't you? 
........................................................



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