Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:20:15 +0800 Subject: Re: Being and Time-section 2 From: Malcolm Riddoch <riddoch-AT-central.murdoch.edu.au> On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 04:27 AM, GEVANS613-AT-aol.com wrote: > Ahhhhhh yes...this text certainly exists in the modality of email, > and the person who is referenced by and who exists > in the existential identificatory modality of Jud implicitly > understands that the existential modality of > the text is being addressed, and not its simple existence, for > otherwise you would have typed > something to the effect that the text simply exists, rather than > describing the mode or state of its existing > as email text. Huh? No really, you're just confusing yourself mate, it is quite simple. In order for you to talk about 'existential identificatory modalities', in order for you to talk at all about something, you must have already come to understand that something. Or put another way, the world is already meaningful before you start trying to put it into words and pull it apart into 'is statements'. Your entire analysis is epistemological rather than ontological, but we're talking about ontology here, and not just Heidegger's but ontology in general. Quine's up with this, even given his strident critique of ontology. What we're looking for is the 'sensory barrage' and how to explain it... that's the question of being. The logical positivists opted for a one to one correlation of language with sense percepts, Quine opts for 'myths' that more or less describe sense experience, phenomenology describes lived experience as a whole - 3 different ways of dealing with the 'being' question that nonetheless address ontology which is more than I can say for you. The question of being is about that 'simple existence' you refer to, but considered ontologically and before you go off on one of your 'existential modality' rants. At this point in BT we're working with the most general of introductory statements and what we're dealing with isn't even particularly 'Heideggerean', it's certainly phenomenological but it's also a very general philosophical statement about ontology. And do you really not 'more or less understand without even thinking about it what it means to say something or other 'is' something'? Cos if so you must have a really hard time socially, wandering from one unidentified existential modality to the other and having to piece it all together on the fly while everyone else already just understands everything in an average kind of way. Cheers, mr --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005