From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com>
Subject: Re: Anxious to
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:24:22 -0800



Subject: Re: Anxious to


John Foster wrote:

>Whatever Heidegger states about the ontology of anxiety,
>anxiety remains a state of mind. That is, anxiety is not
>involved in the ready to hand nor the presence to hand, it
>is found in dealings with the factical (entities and their
>facts, positively) but also in the numinous.

Not sure what you mean by that last word, but anxiety
DEFINITELY is NOT
found in dealings with the factical; in the text I gave you,
Heidegger says
exactly the opposite. The anxiety that is found in dealings
with the
factical is ontic anxiety.

Anthony, now that is a twist. What do I call ontological
anxiety? Do you have a reference to that?


The ontological form of anxiety is found
precisely in the COLLAPSE of all dealing with the factical,
thereby
collapsing all interpretations of Dasein in terms of
factical beings,
thereby disclosing Dasein as pure potentiality for being as
such.

Interesting Anthony, do you have a reference to this?

thanks

john






>So now you are saying that all 'involvement' collapses into
>a state of mind, called anxiety. Are you sure?
>
>What about the dual meaning of 'awe' and 'fascination'.
><Tremendum et fascinam> (cf. Otto)
>
>This interpretation of yours is that mental states have
>greater reality than the external world, that ideas about
>the world, and internal states (moods) are the only
>ultimately real nature, simply and truly.

Oh geez you just can't keep yourself from interpreting every
possible
Heideggerian term ontically! "State of mind" (which you so
ontically oppose
to "the external world"), "moods" (which you so ontically
label as "internal
states") - you've got to snap out of this John!

Do you see this Rene (excuse me for just a minute, John)?
This is what you
are trying to defend as the ultimate dissolution of the o/o
distinction?
Can't you see that this is a confusion AT THE START?

Ok, back again John. Heidegger is using state of mind in an
ONTOLOGICAL
sense, whereas you are interpreting it factically - as a
factical "state" of
a factical "mind," which is opposed to a factical "external
world."
Similarly, you are interpreting mood as a factical "state"
that is
factically "internal" that is opposed to the factically
"external." This is
not what Heidegger means! By "state of mind," Heidegger is
trying to convey
that it is essentially constitutive of Dasein, not "mind" as
opposed to
"external world".

Anthony Crifasi

>What you are suggesting of course is that all is 'vanity
and
>vexation' in this world, something akin to the
>Ecclesiastical belief, and Job-esque forlorn-ment.
>
>Of course there is the 'ekstatic' and that is what makes
>life worth living for, that is fascination for others, in
>the sense of 'enactment' of love, being, and life (Eckhardt
>would say: God, Being, and Love).
>
>I hope that your world is not that bleak,



____________________________________________________________
_____
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963



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




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