File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2001/heidegger.0102, message 15

Subject: Re: Liberation of Selfhood.
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:44:39 -0000

----- Original Message -----  From: "Jan Straathof" < To:
< Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 12: 53
AM Subject: Re: Liberation of Selfhood.

Hi Jud,

really enjoyed your exposee on shelfhood, but at the end I'm getting a bit
puzzled though, --- on the one hand you write:

- an 'I' incidentally, who was not the same 'I' who went to bed last night -
and not even the same 'I' who first started to read the beginning of this
sentence - but an ever-changing "me" who undergoes constant change

yet on the other, you propose to us that:

our new scientific philosophy urges maximum enjoyment of our earthbound
modality of existence

but how can an 'I' know (assess, experience) any maximalisation of X if this
'I' is constantly changing (being an other 'I'); i mean, if the 'I' at t1 is
not the same as the 'I' at t2, how could I-t2 say/know something
(X) is maximalized (or not)? and in reference to what or to whom ?

--- not to I-t1, because I-t1 does not exist anymore at t2 and thus every
frame of reference to maximalisation from I-t1 to I-t2 is logically
impossible ?

[t1 = time 1; t2 = time 2 (any moment after t1)]

Hi Jan!  I think that you are falling into the trap of 'over-egging' the
pudding - memory doesn't work like that in the real world. You can get the
same eisenbahnzug to work every day and still accommodate a serial "me."
Still nod to fellow travellers. Come on now Jan - get real! : -)

[the 'maximalisation' problem can imo only be solved by inventing the
faculty of memory, but then we have to reject your thesis of "an ever-
changing "me"", because the existence of memory presupposes and necessitates
an 'I' of onto/psychological stasis, where stored and fixed knowledges etc.
give (ingrediental/essential? ) permanence to the 'I'. ]

We don't need to 'invent' the faculty of memory - talk to people in the
strasse Jan - I think you're losing touch - people live from day to  day and
cope with it.  I'm disappointed that you chose to nit-pick instead of
addressing the main thrust of the piece - the proposition that science
should admit  spirituality and take over the central ground, rather like
Tony Blair has done to the Tories in Britain.

--- let's enjoy the subtly of tense in this stanza:

"If time depends on an entity,  Then without an entity how could time exist?

There is no existent entity.  So how can time exist?

[Nagarjuna, MK: 19-6]

It's a question of salesmanship/rhetoric - if we accept the premise of the
first sentence.  Of course you know and I know and the little hunchback that
sells dirty books at the back of the bus-station knows that time DOESN'T
depend on an entity - if Ronald Reagan died tomorrow time would still march
on. In other words Nagarjuna is what we call a  "pathetic wanker" in
Liverpool - a man of no consequence - an escapologist wriggling out of his
own hapless chains.

But. . . . . . . . thanks for the courtesy and lack of bile which is really
unusual and refreshing on a Heidegger list.



     --- from list ---


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005