You wrote:
>
>In S&Z (H. 44-45), Heidegger is explaining that to interpret dasein
>ontologically, "the problematic of its Being must be developed from
the
>existentiality of its existence".
>
>He continues: "Dasein should not be interpreted with the
differentiated
>character of some definite way of existing, but that it should be
uncovered
>in the undifferentiated character which it has proximally and for the
most
>part".
>
>Heidegger immediately notes that "this undifferentiated character of
>Dasein's everydayness is _not nothing_". Indeed, "out of this kind of
Being
>- and back into it again - is all existing, such as it is".
>
>Then, "We call this everyday undifferentiated character of Dasein
>'Durchschnittlichkeit'".
>
>The translator's render this word "average".
>
>Even though "average" may be the 'correct' translation, I find this
rather
>unsatisfying.
>It seems to lose a dimension H. is referring to, i.e. of the
possibility of
>our mistaking the undifferentiated character of Dasein as "nothing".
Why
>would he explicitly warn us that it is NOT nothing.
The NOT-NOTHIING is not nothing at all, ie "indifference." What is
decisive is that in the term "indifference" lies the truth of
Not-Nothing, in the sense of the Un-essence of Being.
The Un-essence belongs to the Essence essentially. Da-sein is in the
truth of essence and the un-truth of essence--equiprimordially. Thus,
"averageness" is so little a not-nothing that it constitutes the very
everdayness of our everyday existence!
> The 'throughness'
>(indicated by 'Durch') has the feeling of a _transparancy_, a
dimension
>which cannot be (immediately) seen but is mistakenly _seen though_, as
it were.
I would then agree with you, if you meant that the "mistakenly seen
through" IS everydayness; not devoid of essence, but _un_-essence
itself. Un-essence is not-nothing, but un-_essence_. Then,
everydayness is un-essence, or, as you may have meant it, "mistakenly
(as Un-essence) seen through (as belonging to essence).
>Can anyone relate to the problem I am gesturing at here? Are there any
>alternatives to "average" in this context.
I find average in the sense of the in-difference to Being of
everydayness pretty good.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Brendan
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
Peter Durigon
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>In S&Z (H. 44-45), Heidegger is explaining that to interpret dasein
>ontologically, "the problematic of its Being must be developed from
the
>existentiality of its existence".
>
>He continues: "Dasein should not be interpreted with the
differentiated
>character of some definite way of existing, but that it should be
uncovered
>in the undifferentiated character which it has proximally and for the
most
>part".
>
>Heidegger immediately notes that "this undifferentiated character of
>Dasein's everydayness is _not nothing_". Indeed, "out of this kind of
Being
>- and back into it again - is all existing, such as it is".
>
>Then, "We call this everyday undifferentiated character of Dasein
>'Durchschnittlichkeit'".
>
>The translator's render this word "average".
>
>Even though "average" may be the 'correct' translation, I find this
rather
>unsatisfying.
>It seems to lose a dimension H. is referring to, i.e. of the
possibility of
>our mistaking the undifferentiated character of Dasein as "nothing".
Why
>would he explicitly warn us that it is NOT nothing.
The NOT-NOTHIING is not nothing at all, ie "indifference." What is
decisive is that in the term "indifference" lies the truth of
Not-Nothing, in the sense of the Un-essence of Being.
The Un-essence belongs to the Essence essentially. Da-sein is in the
truth of essence and the un-truth of essence--equiprimordially. Thus,
"averageness" is so little a not-nothing that it constitutes the very
everdayness of our everyday existence!
> The 'throughness'
>(indicated by 'Durch') has the feeling of a _transparancy_, a
dimension
>which cannot be (immediately) seen but is mistakenly _seen though_, as
it were.
I would then agree with you, if you meant that the "mistakenly seen
through" IS everydayness; not devoid of essence, but _un_-essence
itself. Un-essence is not-nothing, but un-_essence_. Then,
everydayness is un-essence, or, as you may have meant it, "mistakenly
(as Un-essence) seen through (as belonging to essence).
>Can anyone relate to the problem I am gesturing at here? Are there any
>alternatives to "average" in this context.
I find average in the sense of the in-difference to Being of
everydayness pretty good.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Brendan
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
Peter Durigon
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---