>Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 08:06:00 +1200
>From: artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx (M.Eldred_artefact)
> There is no continuity between subjectivity and Dasein, only a leap. For subjectivity,
>everything happens in the imaginations of consciousness. Consciousness is withing the
>subject and it becomes a problem to understand how consciousness can get out into the
>world. Dasein, on the other hand, is already this primordial transcendence to the world;
>it is always already out-standing, standing out in the there of the as, understanding
>beings as such and being impacted by the moods of beings as a whole.
Does Heidegger use the word "transcendence"? As for the leap, is it not rather a "crash":
for the barriers go down, the social conventions fall from our eyes, but we ourselves do
not leap over the (Lessing) ditch?
>A shepherd is not a technician, does not bring >forth into the clearing of beyng but
instead protects the clearing in which beings as such >can appear.
What is the protection consisting of? Through dwelling poetically, thinking, great works of
art?
> I would be careful to call Mitsein "community", because this suggests some sort of
>belonging together, some chumminess. Mitsein means that the other AS such is accessible to
>Dasein. Dasein can understand another Dasein, it can be affected by the other's moods.
>This does not mean that the other is transparent. On the contrary! But being Dasein always
>already involves being together with others, understanding others AS another Dasein and
>being impacted by others' moods, whether collective or individual. (Dasein is thought
>before any differentiation into collective and individual.)
This transparency is not of self, but of receptivity to the manifestion of other selves?
> The impact of beyng on Dasein is always twofold: understanding of beings and mood. Mood
>does not bring beings to stand, does not de-fine them as distinct entities. Nevertheless,
>Dasein can capture the meaning or direction of a mood, is affected by it. Mood is the
>impact of beyng that cannot be con-fined in limits. Somehow it is the impact of beying
>that is always already spilling out over the edge.
In the having of mood, or the sharing of mood, does that not define us? Not as subjects
(ostensive etc) but as that or those capable of having those moods? Cannot definition be
open ended rather tham enclosing? Is this talk of transparency of humans as being both both
filters and receptors?
Erik Champion
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>From: artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx (M.Eldred_artefact)
> There is no continuity between subjectivity and Dasein, only a leap. For subjectivity,
>everything happens in the imaginations of consciousness. Consciousness is withing the
>subject and it becomes a problem to understand how consciousness can get out into the
>world. Dasein, on the other hand, is already this primordial transcendence to the world;
>it is always already out-standing, standing out in the there of the as, understanding
>beings as such and being impacted by the moods of beings as a whole.
Does Heidegger use the word "transcendence"? As for the leap, is it not rather a "crash":
for the barriers go down, the social conventions fall from our eyes, but we ourselves do
not leap over the (Lessing) ditch?
>A shepherd is not a technician, does not bring >forth into the clearing of beyng but
instead protects the clearing in which beings as such >can appear.
What is the protection consisting of? Through dwelling poetically, thinking, great works of
art?
> I would be careful to call Mitsein "community", because this suggests some sort of
>belonging together, some chumminess. Mitsein means that the other AS such is accessible to
>Dasein. Dasein can understand another Dasein, it can be affected by the other's moods.
>This does not mean that the other is transparent. On the contrary! But being Dasein always
>already involves being together with others, understanding others AS another Dasein and
>being impacted by others' moods, whether collective or individual. (Dasein is thought
>before any differentiation into collective and individual.)
This transparency is not of self, but of receptivity to the manifestion of other selves?
> The impact of beyng on Dasein is always twofold: understanding of beings and mood. Mood
>does not bring beings to stand, does not de-fine them as distinct entities. Nevertheless,
>Dasein can capture the meaning or direction of a mood, is affected by it. Mood is the
>impact of beyng that cannot be con-fined in limits. Somehow it is the impact of beying
>that is always already spilling out over the edge.
In the having of mood, or the sharing of mood, does that not define us? Not as subjects
(ostensive etc) but as that or those capable of having those moods? Cannot definition be
open ended rather tham enclosing? Is this talk of transparency of humans as being both both
filters and receptors?
Erik Champion
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---