From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:31:42 EST
Subject: appearance and disappearance



--part1_34.1e83ea20.293527fe_boundary
Content-Language: en

Allen wrote:
 So the question is not really " Why is there something rather than nothing?
"

Jud:
True! :-)

Allen:
Or " Why are there beings rather than not? "

Jud:
True! :-)

Allen:
 But rather, " Why do these various somethings/beings appear (make an
appearance), rather than not? "

Jud:
Afraid not Allen. :-(
These various somethings/beings appear ( make an appearance to an observer or
observers ) because there are other observer-type somethings/beings present
to perceive and apprehend the appearance of   the other various
somethings/beings. In other words one is not dependant on the other
ontologically.  The unperceived somethings/beings do not cease to exist
because they are unperceived by the observer-type perceiving
somethings/beings, and the observer-type perceiving somethings/beings do not
particularly miss the unperceived somethings/beings [unless they have a great
longing to see the Taj Mahal or the Tower of Pisa or the grave of Elvis
Presley] that they never get to perceive.
BUT the observer-type perceiving somethings/beings sometimes MISS the
previously perceived but no longer existing formerly perceived
somethings/beings, (as is the case if a loved one passes away.)

Allen:
For one thing, as you suggest, these appearances are really wondrous
exchanges between so-called subjects and so-called objects, a kind of tacit
"agreement" between subjects and objects to permit such appearances to take
place.

Jud:
It is only between human beings [and occasionally animals] that such wondrous
exchanges and tacit agreements take place and the mutual assessment of each
other's appearance is made.
Exchanges between humans and insensate objects may be   wondrous to the human
being  {looking at the starlit heavens for example] but they are  'one-way'
exchanges.  There is no 'tacit agreement' as far as an inanimate or insensate
entity is concerned. A tree gives no acquiescence when you look at it =E2=80=93 it is
not even conscious that it is being looked at

Allen:
It's the same sort of profoundly human generosity I experience when I go to
the theatre. Here are these actors putting their heart and soul into making
an appearance, and then there's this audience out there, coming from far and
wide, putting the "purity" of their own precious subjectivity on hold, in
order to serve as audience for this appearance.

Jud:
Yes, you rightly point to the fact that it is the actors who initiate the
event of coming into sight and it is the audience who judge the appearance AS
IT APPEARS TO THEM.
Allen:
I sometimes feel such generosity on the part of my students when I make an
appearance as  "professor" in the classroom. I feel at the end, i should
thank them for helping make this appearance possible, and perhaps grade them
on its quality.

Jud:
Yes, you make your appearance on the rostrum but it is your students who
validate and render the event semantically valid as an appearance.
Without them you would simply be standing there alone, unless of course a
stray cleaner walked in with his shovel and brush and spotted you standing
there without accompaniment   =E2=80=93 in which case you would APPEAR to him  rather
than merely exist as a singleton in the echoing lecture hall.

Allen:
We're reading Camus in one of my classes, and I'm struck by the tremendous
humanity present in his closely watched observations of the people making
their appearance in an otherwise desolate world.  There's an expression in
Italian, "una buena figura, " made, as I understand it for appreciating just
such well-wrought appearances (  So you can just enjoy the pleasure of a
reaction without the hard work of writing! )

The answer to the question, then, "Why are there appearances rather than not?
" is "for the sake of the exchanges, " the being-with that makes it
worthwhile for Dasein to be, rather than not.

Jud:
As far as human to human, and human to animal, and animal to animal Is
concerned yes, but as far as human / animal to insensate entity is concerned
then I am afraid the exchange is strictly one way.  As for  'that grammatical
sin which dare not speak its name 'Dasein' is concerned =E2=80=93 I will pass over
that bag of worms in silence.

Jud.



--part1_34.1e83ea20.293527fe_boundary

HTML VERSION: