>I think it to be very interesting to state that difference between
>understanding and interpretation may be linked to a difference in temporality.
>But now, could Henry explain what is meant by "difference in temporality"
>
>Regards,
>
>Ruud
>
>
i'm not sure i coined "difference in temporality,"
that phrase may be one of Michael Staples' "things"
(sorry, Michael, couldn't resist) - - -
but, never worried about looking like a fool,
i'll give it a try:
i see Verstehen as the background of dasein's
holistic horizon of significance. that is, we live in
a world that is an interconnection of myrid interpretations,
tacit and otherwise that make up how we cope and care for
people and "things" and the 'world.' Another way of saying this
is that the classic "presence" of Being, that freeze-frame concept of
'reality' that grounds western metaphysics is really one
or another present-at-hand interpretation itself grounded on a
practical holism of skills and customs which go hand in glove with
a practical and holistic system of signification (Meaning)
that heidegger calls "the background."
The Understanding, at rest, IS the Background.
The Understanding in motion IS interpretation.
MOTION is moving forward, moving forward (in time) is moving
into the future, so interpretation has a futural dimension
whereas the understanding "is the present."
To be alive (Michael Staples : "breathing") is to be
ceaselessly moving into the future.
to be ceaseless moving into the future is to be ceaseless
involved in interpretive activity:
interpreting oneself (taking on roles)
interpreting the significance of entities in the world
and interpreting the worldhood of the world.
to quote frank zappa (_absolutely free_):
"did you pick up on that, man?"
henry
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---