In a message dated 28/08/2004 05:46:32 GMT Standard Time,
FREDWELFARE@xxxxxxx writes:
In a message dated 8/26/2004 10:56:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gevans613@xxxxxxx writes:
There is of course nothing to pinpoint, for the sensing of "Being" is just
the way that the bodybrain registers that it is conscious of the world in
which it finds itself — the notion of "Being" is the brain's way of
cognising
that it is "switched on" and that the human being which it is — is the
human
being which it is.
Jud,
But, shit happens so being must be more than sensing, or sensing my
particularity.
Fred
Jud:
Hi Fred:
I have just sent a message to Calypso on the "posh Heidy list" which deals
with your
point [I think]
Here it is again. (see below) if this doesn't address your question - please
let my know.
Cheers,
Jud.
Want to joijn the brand new Nominalism list?
Go to: _http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nominalism/_
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nominalism/) and click subscribe
In a message dated 28/08/2004 06:54:17 GMT Standard Time,
calypso_1001_2000@xxxxxxxxxxx writes
Calypso Writes::
Jud:
"for the sensing of "Being" is just
the way that the bodybrain registers that it is
conscious of the world in
which it finds itself — the notion of "Being" is
the brain's way of cognising
that it is "switched on" and that the human being
which it is — is the human
being which it is."
Calypso writes:
Just want to ask what kind of (presumably real or
existing) thing is a/the way ("bodybrain registers..."
or "brain's way of cognising...", and so on)? In the
sense that you mean it, what is a "way" if it is to be
something that "exists" (alongside?) with/as well as,
the "bodybrain" existing thing? If your notion of
"way" does not "exist ", in what other way do mean by
"way" that seems so essential to the "bodybrain" and
all the other things that "exist" in your sense? You
are always referring to the "ways something exists"
and so on.
Cheers
Calypso
Jud:
Hi Calypso,
The holistic human state is more difficult to understand and communicate
than the dualistic one
of "soul and body, mind and body," and "the ontological difference,", etc.
The reason for this
is that we are brainwashed from birth and naturally absorb the dualistic
interpretation — the belief that there is a "ME" and there is also
this meaty thing called: "my body," which carries the "ME" around — the "me"
that resides within the "howdah"
of the cranium like some discriminating "mahout" prodding, goading and
"willing" the poor brute beneath into action.
The answer to your question: 'What kind of existing thing [entity] registers
the world around it," — it is the bodybrain itself.
Taking Michael's wise advice, I have of late taken to referring to the
bodybrain as "the human holism," for the term "bodybrain"
still contains echoes of a putative human dualism, although terminologically
the original choice of the word was to indicate a unity rather than a
dichotomy. So, to rephrase the sentence: The entity that does the thinking or
cognising or the physical action — is the human holism.
If you then answered by stating: "OK, but it is a particular PART of the
holism that does the thinking — your right big toe and your armpit, your left
nostril and your chin are not involved in the thinking and cognising, so surely
it is valid to posit a dualism between the fleshy bits and the "thought" or
"mind" that is generated and emerges from the fleshy bits? My answer to that
would be "Oh, but they are, all the parts of the body have a function, the
end result of our development into and as homo sapiens, the whole holism works
as part of the brain and the brain works as part of the body, the body
provides an intricate network of sensors with which it feeds information to the
brain, the organ we call our "skin, is not only a waterproof envelope with
seals the body from the outside environment, its whole area comprises of sensing
cells, the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue with its taste buds all
inform the body of temperature, pressure, pain which is all part of the thinking
process, they make it possible for the holism to be mobile — to move — to
change its location, they allow us to understand and comprehend the world in
which we live, and make sense of the other human and animal holisms with who
we share that world.
The "way" the holism carries out the existential cognitive processes, is the
"way" that the holism is existing in those moments of time that it is
existentially cognising.
The "way" is not redolent in any way of oriental notions of "way" [path]
which one encounters in Taoism etc. ;-) There is nothing "mystical" about the
way or the ever-changing modal states in which a human being exists.
The way a human being acts/thinks is just another way of expressing the
notion of "modality, or manner, or fashion, or style," in which some existential
action is performed.
In that sense it expresses adverbiality and describes the manner in which a
human being executes some holistic action.
If a human holism is existentially engaged in climbing a ladder, the way it
climbs the ladder is described with adverbs, such as "quickly, slowly,
carefully, nervously, etc., and the "way" it climbs the ladder corresponds with the
"way" it is existing at that particular period of its animation [which we
call: "its life." "Way" itself does not exist, for it simply represents the
current manner in which the holism performs some act during its existential
sojourn here on earth.
As I said at the outset — it is a difficult concept to grasp, and many
people have internalised the notion of duality to such an extent that they find it
impossible to imagine that there is no split between a cognising brain and
the vessel within which it appears to be contained. Even great minds, like
Heidegger's found it impossible to grasp, and the dualistic notion of "Being"
appears as "a given" in "Being and Time."
In other words, he questions" the "question of "Being" on the [unexamined]
assumption or accepted premise that THERE IS a "Being" to be "questioned in
the first place. This was the first breathtakingly "unprofessional" academic
modus operandi that I encountered when I first started to read the
introduction to his book. I expected him to at least MENTION the fact that the concept
of "Being" was NOT a philosophical a priori, premise or "given" in ALL
philosophies, and point out that if it was indeed a given, it was only ONLY an
assumption that is taken for granted by those who subscribe to the sort of
traditional philosophy where this primitive notion is accepted as part of its
cannon.
In two words - HE DIDN'T. :-(
Cheers,
Jud
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---