From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Anxiety is about nothing...whatsoever, was distortions
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 06:12:59 +0000


John Foster wrote:

> > No authentic ontological "equivalent" of plunder? There is nothing
> > incompatible between plundering and authenticity!
>
>Crowd mentality, lawlessness, law of the jungle, no equivalent, no? No
>mitdasein there at all.

But you agree later that "Mitsein pervades everything from our most 
universal agreements to our most private, defiant thoughts." So yes, 
mitdasein is in crowd mentality, lawlessness, and law of the jungle, and in 
every other factical being-in-the-world.

> > Similarly, an
> > ontological "equivalent" to disarmament and peace? Mitsein pervades
> > everything from our most universal agreements to our most private, 
>defiant
> > thoughts. It is not as if one is mitsein but the other is not.
>
>Right. So you agree. The importance of the ontological parallel in 
>existence
>is that 'being-in' and 'world' are also ontological equivalents. These also
>have their essential factical components, obviously.

Ontological existentials having "factical components"? You are just throwing 
around jargon without knowing what the hell you are talking about. Yes, 
mitsein is equiprimordial with being-in, which means precisely that there 
can be no factical being-in-the-world which is no mitsein or being-in. None. 
Zilch. Zero. Nada.

> > There is nothing incompatible between factical dis-harmony (such as war 
>or
> > murder) and authenticity. Again, look at what the Nazis did.
>
>Sure there is. Of interest is the fact that only Jews who had an ancestor
>born before a specific date were considered legal Jews for the purposes of
>incarceration and disposal. Hitler himself was a descendent of a Jewish
>Granfather. The lack of understanding is also obvious since the destruction
>of the German Jew was 'fratricide' and arose from a fundamental
>'misunderstanding'.

Oh, you mean that this particular projection upon Dasein's potentiality for 
being was not a projection upon Dasein's potentiality for being? Because 
that the absurdity you would have to maintain if you say that this is a lack 
of understanding in the ontological sense.

> > Oh John you are using Heidegger's terms so loosely! Understanding, in 
>the
> > ontological sense, is the condition for ANY factical being-in-the-world,
> > including being at war. Understanding is simply projection upon Dasein's
>own
> > authentic potentiality for being.
>
>Dasein 'falls' in confrontation withe the factical, with the given
>historical situation. Thus Dasein, is authenticated only when the factical
>'collapses' or rather when 'being-in-the-world' collapses (which means that
>entities, the objective reality become insignificant). We have covered this
>aspect well. Dasein does not collapse but rather 'falls'.

John, Dasein falls INTO the factical world, which is precisely what 
collapses in anxiety. SO FALLING AND ANXIETY ARE IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS 
JOHN! You have absolutely no inkling of the jargon you are using!

>Understanding is a need
>initially to discover 'possible-being' which is in contrast to the
>tranquillized acceptance of the world as it is, as distinct historical
>situation, of the 'disowned' self, aquiesed in the 'public they'....

Um, both tranquillized Dasein and authentic Dasein presuppose ontological 
understanding, because BOTH ARE PROJECTION UPON POTENTIALITY FOR BEING JOHN! 
You have absolutely NO idea what you are saying!

>  >So it is nonsensical to say that Dasein
> > can misunderstand in the ONTOLOGICAL sense - just as nonsensical as 
>saying
> > that it is possible for Dasein to not be-with-Others, ever.
>
>No. This is what you say.

"On the contrary, any Dasein has, as Dasein, already projected itself; and 
as long as it is, it is projecting. As long as it is, Dasein always has 
understood itself and always will understand itself in terms of 
possibilities." (SuZ 145)

Sorry John.

>What I said was that understanding cannot project
>spontaneouly from Da-sein himself, unless there is a need. That need arises
>during anxiety. Anxiety or dread therefore 'individuates' the authentic
>self; afterall,  in the everyday experience of the 'disowned' self, there 
>is
>no need to understand;

"Understanding is either authentic, arising out of one's own Self as such, 
or inauthentic." (SuZ 146)

Sorry John.

>Typified by the 'everyday' inauthenticity
>is a sense of living in the 'innerworldly' now of 'ready to hand' and
>'presence to hand' [objective reality, and ready handiness of equipment,
>language, et cetera]. None of these 'comportments' belong to the 'authentic
>self'...

But they all presuppose understanding in the ontological sense.

>There is no object for anxiety other than possibility of the 'owned' self.
>The self and world are placed into question by dread. While the other
>ontological-existentials 'collapse', the feeling of 'not being at home'
>arises during dread. Dread has no object because it is a mood, and moods 
>are
>not 'comprehensions' about the external world,

Oh dear you really have no idea about the words you are using, do you? FEAR 
IS A MOOD JOHN! FEAR HAS SOMETHING IN THE WORLD AS ITS OBJECT JOHN! THE SKY 
IS BLUE JOHN!

>Da-sein would still exist without dread, but it would not be 'self-owned'
>since it would be absorbed into the public they, the fallen world of the
>historical situation where nothing is questioned, and understanding could
>not arise. For instance, the invention of the wheel probably arose during
>anxiety, during the mood or feeling of 'not-at-home' due to the great 
>effort
>and frustration of being subject to the backpack and grasping style of
>transportation.

???????????????
???????????????????
??????????????????
?????????????????????

>The way to see this is that prior to the wheel becoming
>'ready to hand' something else was ready to hand; and as long as this
>something else, a 'travois' for instance worked, there was no understanding
>of the wheel. Thinking and authenticity arise when through dread someone
>thinks, "yes may it be possible that...this round object would work."

??????????????????
???????????????????
??????????????
????????????????????

Rene, Malcolm, do you really want to be associated with this?

>Of
>course this is  simplified rendition of the existentialist project for
>Heidegger because in BT we are exposed to the modalized froms of care, et
>cetera. The analogy is important here to because of Da-sein's throwness.

Your rendition is not merely simplified. To say that the invention of the 
wheel probably occurred during anxiety, in the present Heideggerian context 
of our discussion, is purely and simply a mis-rendition.

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
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 ---