quoting Malcolm Riddoch:
>But who, apart from
>Heidegger, would wish to claim to have access to this superior ground? And
>here the question becomes - who of us is not entangled, and of these, who
>can guarantee that they are or are not 'transcendentally' positioned?
I'm thinking that Heidegger's hermeneutic spiral of interpreting the
meaning of Being (a meaning which was only methodologically _aimed_at_ in
B&T) was only thought to be possible _because_ of the unescapable
entanglement - including the idle chatter, of which no discourse is free,
as we are all part of the "they" that idly chats. (It is a very different
than the notion of the transcendental, intentional consciousness of a
Husserl.)
B&T, p 213 of the English 1962 translation:
"...This everyday way in which things have been interpreted is one into
which Dasein has grown in the first instance, with never a possibility of
extrication. In it, out of it, and against it, all genuine understanding,
interpreting, and communicating, all re-discovering and appropriating anew,
are performed. In no case is a Dasein, untouched and unseduced by this way
in which things have been interpreted, set before the open country of a
'world-in-itself' so that it just beholds what it encounters. ..."
B&T, p168:
"...Authentic Being-one's-Self does not rest upon an exceptional condition
of the subject, a condition that has been detached from the "they"; it is
rather an existentiell modification of the "they" - of the "they" as an
essential existentiale."
And finally, B&T, p165-6:
"Everyone is the other, and no one is himself. The "they", which supplies
the answer to the question of the "who" of everyday Dasein, is the "nobody"
to whom every Dasein has already surrendered itself in
Being-among-one-other."
-jeff
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>But who, apart from
>Heidegger, would wish to claim to have access to this superior ground? And
>here the question becomes - who of us is not entangled, and of these, who
>can guarantee that they are or are not 'transcendentally' positioned?
I'm thinking that Heidegger's hermeneutic spiral of interpreting the
meaning of Being (a meaning which was only methodologically _aimed_at_ in
B&T) was only thought to be possible _because_ of the unescapable
entanglement - including the idle chatter, of which no discourse is free,
as we are all part of the "they" that idly chats. (It is a very different
than the notion of the transcendental, intentional consciousness of a
Husserl.)
B&T, p 213 of the English 1962 translation:
"...This everyday way in which things have been interpreted is one into
which Dasein has grown in the first instance, with never a possibility of
extrication. In it, out of it, and against it, all genuine understanding,
interpreting, and communicating, all re-discovering and appropriating anew,
are performed. In no case is a Dasein, untouched and unseduced by this way
in which things have been interpreted, set before the open country of a
'world-in-itself' so that it just beholds what it encounters. ..."
B&T, p168:
"...Authentic Being-one's-Self does not rest upon an exceptional condition
of the subject, a condition that has been detached from the "they"; it is
rather an existentiell modification of the "they" - of the "they" as an
essential existentiale."
And finally, B&T, p165-6:
"Everyone is the other, and no one is himself. The "they", which supplies
the answer to the question of the "who" of everyday Dasein, is the "nobody"
to whom every Dasein has already surrendered itself in
Being-among-one-other."
-jeff
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---