On Wed, 1 Nov 1995 21:06:09 -0400 you wrote:
Nik,
>
>This is in your response to anthony and I just want to ask some qusetions
>about it before everything goes crazy.
>
>
>I think I agree with you about Dasein being a structure and title(although I
>had to read your first sentence about six times before I thought I knew
>whyat you meant - not because of your English, I don't think, but because of
>English itself). If I understand you correctly you mean that, in the
>context of the ontology as a whole, Dasein is a structure which allows
>Heidegger to examine "Being" (or attempt to examine, if you prefer). Are
>you meaning to say by this that we are placing too much weight on the fact
>that Dasein is "us"? I am not sure we are.
No, you don't place too much weight on Dasein. What I mean: I read the
message from Christopher in the sense of making a difference between
Dasein and inauthentic (ontic) Being. But Dasein means both kind of
Being, not only the authentic way or the way of the
"for-the-sake-of-wich". Perhaps I misunderstood Christopher. Sorry
about my misreading. ...Hmmm. ok, perhaps I want to say that you take
too much weight on Dasein. In õ1: "Dieses Seiende, das wir selbst je
sind und das unter anderem die Seinsm?glichkeit des Fragens hat,
fassen wir terminologisch als Dasein" (p7 in german text). That means:
Dasein is only a terminological(ly?) term for beings that we ourself
*are*. Dasein is related to beings, but it is not extrem important,
that it is a term of beings. The important point is, that it is a term
of beings which *are* as *I am* (the "who"). In the following parts,
Heidegger says "Sein des Daseins" (Being of Dasein). The traditional
"metaphysicans" (I don't use this characterization in a negativ
context) say: We are an "I" (found in a reflectiv construction).
Heidegger answers: That is only the formal indication, we must ask how
the I *is*. And *is* is existence as a "how".
I don't hope that this notes makes all crazy for you.
> While Dasein is a structure
>used to explore "how existence is" (Being), it is also a entity (being) for
>whom Being is a concern. It is more than just a structure it is an entity,
>with existence, and Heidegger spends a lot of time explaining "how" this
>entity *is* on his way to discussing *isness* itself.
I agree with you, but I don't like the word "entity" and "with
existence" (and this is the word I heard behind Christophers
sentences). Perhaps you have another meaning of "entity". For me
"entity" means "substance". We could reflect us inauthentical as a
substance or as "presence-at -hand" and in this way existence is
something which we "have". But we don't are an entity wich has the
quality or attribut "existence". There is only in theoretical
thematisation (that is for Heidegger "Ontologie") a difference between
something X (entity) and his quality (existence). However when we
execute *us* ( ever existentiell) there is no difference between X and
existence. Then we exist (with all "how-s").
>As for Existeniell/existential I would place them the other way (I think -
>although this may just be that pesky language barrier). I think we can only
>"reflect theoretically" in the existentiell (inauthentic/ontic/"they-self")
>mode and "execute us" (by which I am still taking you to mean "execute" in
>the verb sense - and I like that use a lot) in both the existential and
>existentiell modes of being or just in the existentiell alone (slipping
>completely into inauthentic existence). Perhaps I am missing what you mean
>by "execute" though.
I think here is a confusion because of the language. But: there is an
important transition at the beginning of chapter two in B&T. In õ46
(at the end of this paragraph), Heidegger writes: existentiell means
the possibility to be as "whole" Being (shit, my words...) and
existential is the question of the "Seinsverfassung" (I need the
translation of B&T, now!!...). "Existentiell" has nothing to do with
"inauthentic"!!!!
But we could execute (in the meaning by a verb) only in the
existentiell mode, but there is a possibility to execute in the
existentiell mode in the authentic way. Existential don't means
authentic!!! For example: understanding is an existential and we
understand our Being in inauthentic or authentic mode, don't we?? In
paragraph 4: "Die existenziale Analytik ihrerseits aber ist letztlich
existentiell, d.h. ontisch verwurzelt" (The existential analytic is
deeply rooted existentiell). The existentials we only find in an
analytic way (that I mean with "theoretical reflection"). And this
theoretical reflection would(!) be only a construction (the
metaphysicans made) when it would be only a theoretical reflection,
but there is the possibility to execute ourself in no difference
between being (the object of reflection) and Being. That calls
Heidegger: "Entschlossenheit" (resoluteness/un-locking). In õ4, at the
beginning, he writes, that the ontic characterization of Dasein is
that it *is* ontological (not only a construction).
Oh, heaven, it have to sound crazy for you. Perhaps I try it later
again when I will have heard your critic, that throws me down....(I
get bogged down...)
>I think "egoism" was being used here to mean "subjectivism" and not a
>specifically "moral" context. That is equipment gains its eqipment-ness
>from Dasein (Man) and does this make Heidegger's work "egocentric"
>(towards-the-self).
Thank you for your explanation, "subjektivism" is the better word.
- Christian
Christian Lotz
chrlotz@xxxxxxx
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Nik,
>
>This is in your response to anthony and I just want to ask some qusetions
>about it before everything goes crazy.
>
>
>I think I agree with you about Dasein being a structure and title(although I
>had to read your first sentence about six times before I thought I knew
>whyat you meant - not because of your English, I don't think, but because of
>English itself). If I understand you correctly you mean that, in the
>context of the ontology as a whole, Dasein is a structure which allows
>Heidegger to examine "Being" (or attempt to examine, if you prefer). Are
>you meaning to say by this that we are placing too much weight on the fact
>that Dasein is "us"? I am not sure we are.
No, you don't place too much weight on Dasein. What I mean: I read the
message from Christopher in the sense of making a difference between
Dasein and inauthentic (ontic) Being. But Dasein means both kind of
Being, not only the authentic way or the way of the
"for-the-sake-of-wich". Perhaps I misunderstood Christopher. Sorry
about my misreading. ...Hmmm. ok, perhaps I want to say that you take
too much weight on Dasein. In õ1: "Dieses Seiende, das wir selbst je
sind und das unter anderem die Seinsm?glichkeit des Fragens hat,
fassen wir terminologisch als Dasein" (p7 in german text). That means:
Dasein is only a terminological(ly?) term for beings that we ourself
*are*. Dasein is related to beings, but it is not extrem important,
that it is a term of beings. The important point is, that it is a term
of beings which *are* as *I am* (the "who"). In the following parts,
Heidegger says "Sein des Daseins" (Being of Dasein). The traditional
"metaphysicans" (I don't use this characterization in a negativ
context) say: We are an "I" (found in a reflectiv construction).
Heidegger answers: That is only the formal indication, we must ask how
the I *is*. And *is* is existence as a "how".
I don't hope that this notes makes all crazy for you.
> While Dasein is a structure
>used to explore "how existence is" (Being), it is also a entity (being) for
>whom Being is a concern. It is more than just a structure it is an entity,
>with existence, and Heidegger spends a lot of time explaining "how" this
>entity *is* on his way to discussing *isness* itself.
I agree with you, but I don't like the word "entity" and "with
existence" (and this is the word I heard behind Christophers
sentences). Perhaps you have another meaning of "entity". For me
"entity" means "substance". We could reflect us inauthentical as a
substance or as "presence-at -hand" and in this way existence is
something which we "have". But we don't are an entity wich has the
quality or attribut "existence". There is only in theoretical
thematisation (that is for Heidegger "Ontologie") a difference between
something X (entity) and his quality (existence). However when we
execute *us* ( ever existentiell) there is no difference between X and
existence. Then we exist (with all "how-s").
>As for Existeniell/existential I would place them the other way (I think -
>although this may just be that pesky language barrier). I think we can only
>"reflect theoretically" in the existentiell (inauthentic/ontic/"they-self")
>mode and "execute us" (by which I am still taking you to mean "execute" in
>the verb sense - and I like that use a lot) in both the existential and
>existentiell modes of being or just in the existentiell alone (slipping
>completely into inauthentic existence). Perhaps I am missing what you mean
>by "execute" though.
I think here is a confusion because of the language. But: there is an
important transition at the beginning of chapter two in B&T. In õ46
(at the end of this paragraph), Heidegger writes: existentiell means
the possibility to be as "whole" Being (shit, my words...) and
existential is the question of the "Seinsverfassung" (I need the
translation of B&T, now!!...). "Existentiell" has nothing to do with
"inauthentic"!!!!
But we could execute (in the meaning by a verb) only in the
existentiell mode, but there is a possibility to execute in the
existentiell mode in the authentic way. Existential don't means
authentic!!! For example: understanding is an existential and we
understand our Being in inauthentic or authentic mode, don't we?? In
paragraph 4: "Die existenziale Analytik ihrerseits aber ist letztlich
existentiell, d.h. ontisch verwurzelt" (The existential analytic is
deeply rooted existentiell). The existentials we only find in an
analytic way (that I mean with "theoretical reflection"). And this
theoretical reflection would(!) be only a construction (the
metaphysicans made) when it would be only a theoretical reflection,
but there is the possibility to execute ourself in no difference
between being (the object of reflection) and Being. That calls
Heidegger: "Entschlossenheit" (resoluteness/un-locking). In õ4, at the
beginning, he writes, that the ontic characterization of Dasein is
that it *is* ontological (not only a construction).
Oh, heaven, it have to sound crazy for you. Perhaps I try it later
again when I will have heard your critic, that throws me down....(I
get bogged down...)
>I think "egoism" was being used here to mean "subjectivism" and not a
>specifically "moral" context. That is equipment gains its eqipment-ness
>from Dasein (Man) and does this make Heidegger's work "egocentric"
>(towards-the-self).
Thank you for your explanation, "subjektivism" is the better word.
- Christian
Christian Lotz
chrlotz@xxxxxxx
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---