Laurence wrote:
"And in response to Tom Blancato, who wrote
>How do we decide what is and what is not idle chatter? How does the
>judgment operate, according to what understanding, situation,
>interpretive fluency, etc.? Anyone find this as interesting as I do?
I answer No! Until you answer who "we" is, what it is to "decide", what
is a "judgment" and why do judgments "operate" - in other words, can you
see no irony at all in that the way you have structured your question
already pre-determines its possible range of answers. What could possibly
be interesting about a rehearsal of the standard academic /"philosophical"
jargon in which to "en-frame" this question. "
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that my formulation is "standard".
Your other questions are fine, too. One does not always have to ask "who,
we?" whenever one says "we", though I meant provisionally readers of
Heidegger on this list, in association with this question of "idle
chatter". But my chief contention here is that the occurance of "idle
chatter" already presupposes a fairly unproblematic situation as regards
"judgment", i.e., that the designation "idle chatter" is given to a range
of experience and sociality already in Heidegger by means of a judgment
which *must*, provisionally accompany the questioning and progression of
Being and Time from the start. Does this question "enframe"? Well, I
think it is a decent question, and no, I am not sure that "enframes",
yet. It could, but not yet. It's a sketchy, provisional question. As
such, it heeds the condition Heidegger notes when he says that "Thinking
is on the descent into the poverty of its provisional essence."
But let me ask you, then, how might we ask about the way in which we
*judge* (it appears to be an "operation" of judgment) when something is
or is not "idle chatter"? Do you honestly think I have to specify the
"we" here? Let it be the "Royal we", a kind of formalism. Or let me say
"how does one" (uh oh...) or "how do I"...etc. How do I say: "this is
idle chatter, that is not?" If you want to tell me that there is *no* way
to ask this question at all, then I will stand in opposition on this
question. I'll let a Nietzschean and Heideggerian reader perhaps enjoy
this somewhat tongue in cheek promise/declaration.
Regards,
Tom
_______________________________________________________________
The survivors who spoke of the "electricity", the "lights", the
"metal tables" and the "needles" had a shrieking question mark
in their eyes that wasn't answered by what what we were reading
in the growing volume of material that was being published.
--excerpt from The Stone Angels survivors' journal
Vol. 6 Thunder Bay, Ontario
_______________________________________________________________
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
"And in response to Tom Blancato, who wrote
>How do we decide what is and what is not idle chatter? How does the
>judgment operate, according to what understanding, situation,
>interpretive fluency, etc.? Anyone find this as interesting as I do?
I answer No! Until you answer who "we" is, what it is to "decide", what
is a "judgment" and why do judgments "operate" - in other words, can you
see no irony at all in that the way you have structured your question
already pre-determines its possible range of answers. What could possibly
be interesting about a rehearsal of the standard academic /"philosophical"
jargon in which to "en-frame" this question. "
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that my formulation is "standard".
Your other questions are fine, too. One does not always have to ask "who,
we?" whenever one says "we", though I meant provisionally readers of
Heidegger on this list, in association with this question of "idle
chatter". But my chief contention here is that the occurance of "idle
chatter" already presupposes a fairly unproblematic situation as regards
"judgment", i.e., that the designation "idle chatter" is given to a range
of experience and sociality already in Heidegger by means of a judgment
which *must*, provisionally accompany the questioning and progression of
Being and Time from the start. Does this question "enframe"? Well, I
think it is a decent question, and no, I am not sure that "enframes",
yet. It could, but not yet. It's a sketchy, provisional question. As
such, it heeds the condition Heidegger notes when he says that "Thinking
is on the descent into the poverty of its provisional essence."
But let me ask you, then, how might we ask about the way in which we
*judge* (it appears to be an "operation" of judgment) when something is
or is not "idle chatter"? Do you honestly think I have to specify the
"we" here? Let it be the "Royal we", a kind of formalism. Or let me say
"how does one" (uh oh...) or "how do I"...etc. How do I say: "this is
idle chatter, that is not?" If you want to tell me that there is *no* way
to ask this question at all, then I will stand in opposition on this
question. I'll let a Nietzschean and Heideggerian reader perhaps enjoy
this somewhat tongue in cheek promise/declaration.
Regards,
Tom
_______________________________________________________________
The survivors who spoke of the "electricity", the "lights", the
"metal tables" and the "needles" had a shrieking question mark
in their eyes that wasn't answered by what what we were reading
in the growing volume of material that was being published.
--excerpt from The Stone Angels survivors' journal
Vol. 6 Thunder Bay, Ontario
_______________________________________________________________
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---