Re: Falling. Must we fall?

I've run into some difficulty interpreting uncanniness in BT =A740, p.234, H
189, which may be related to the problem of the apparent contradiction
Ethan raised concerning inauthenticity and falling. Heidegger states at
the bottem of H 189 that uncanniness (being not at home) is more primordial
than being at home in the world. Does this require that Dasein is more
primordially NOT thrown into the world; that its "there" is not its home?
The sticking point is that this seems to remove the "there" of Dasein's
being, making it (not "Da-") Sein, Being. Am I misunderstanding what
Dasein's "there" is? Can it be separated from its thrownness into the
world? Can someone elucidate Dasein's "there" ?
Why would authentic Dasein take over its falling in the world if (if the
above paragraph is correct) Dasein's more primordial being is a being NOT
at home in this world? Wouldn't Dasein's only ownmost possibility be a
return to its primordial Being without a "there", i.e. in completing its
dying? Help. -Colin




--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---


Partial thread listing: