>
>
> Approved: towel
> >From stone1@xxxxxx
> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 09:42:41 -0400
> From: David Stone <stone1@xxxxxx>
> To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Disclosedness
>
> On the subject of disclosedness, while I know that Dreyfus is no one's
> favorite interpreter of Heidegger, he does off a set of distinctions re
> disclosedness that may be of help.
>
> In "Being-in-the-World," Dreyfus writes:
>
> "Disclosing and discovering are two modes of revealing...On the side of
> Dasein, originary transcendence (disclosing) is the condition of the
> possibility of ontic transcendence (discovering), and on the side of the
> world, disclosedness is the condition of possibility of anything being
> discovered."
>
> On this reading, Dasein is socialized into a familiarity with given
> referential wholes of the avaliable and the ready-to-hand such that the big
> dipper can be discovered on the basis of a prior background that contains
> the disclosedness of earth and sky.
>
> David Stone (stone1@xxxxxxxxxx)
>
>
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Does anyone else find it deeply ironic that the reference to
Dreyfus's extremely clear aand precise articulation of an answer to
the question should be prefaced with such a hostile rhetorical
distanciation, as though the latter were necessary to pave the way
for the very admissability of the former?!
Such an unreflexive appropriation of an anti-Dreyfus discourse
etiquette combined with the implicit appropriation of Dreyfus's
cogent explanation is deeply troubling to someone for whom Dreyfus
qualifies for the strange category of 'favorite Heideggerian.'
But the real question underlying this paradigmatically inauthentiuc
gesturte, it seems to me, is as follows. Will we, the next
generation of Heidegger scholars, post-Heideggerian thinkers if not
Heideggerians, continue unquestioned the hostile rhetoric
accompanying the turf wars and ideological gerrymandering of our
predecesors, or will we continue to foster a broader and more
inclusive sense of discursive community, a community which practices
what it preaches and is thus respectful of difference?
Whatever the reasons behind this anti-Dreyfus rhetoric, which I must
confess baffles me completely, it is certain that his work--in
addition to its unrivalled clarity of exposition--embodies this
respect for alterity, which is surely among the most important of
the legacies which Heideggeer's thinking has bequeaeathed to the Western
philosophical tradition.
Iain Thomson
UCSD Philosophy
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
>
> Approved: towel
> >From stone1@xxxxxx
> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 09:42:41 -0400
> From: David Stone <stone1@xxxxxx>
> To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Disclosedness
>
> On the subject of disclosedness, while I know that Dreyfus is no one's
> favorite interpreter of Heidegger, he does off a set of distinctions re
> disclosedness that may be of help.
>
> In "Being-in-the-World," Dreyfus writes:
>
> "Disclosing and discovering are two modes of revealing...On the side of
> Dasein, originary transcendence (disclosing) is the condition of the
> possibility of ontic transcendence (discovering), and on the side of the
> world, disclosedness is the condition of possibility of anything being
> discovered."
>
> On this reading, Dasein is socialized into a familiarity with given
> referential wholes of the avaliable and the ready-to-hand such that the big
> dipper can be discovered on the basis of a prior background that contains
> the disclosedness of earth and sky.
>
> David Stone (stone1@xxxxxxxxxx)
>
>
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Does anyone else find it deeply ironic that the reference to
Dreyfus's extremely clear aand precise articulation of an answer to
the question should be prefaced with such a hostile rhetorical
distanciation, as though the latter were necessary to pave the way
for the very admissability of the former?!
Such an unreflexive appropriation of an anti-Dreyfus discourse
etiquette combined with the implicit appropriation of Dreyfus's
cogent explanation is deeply troubling to someone for whom Dreyfus
qualifies for the strange category of 'favorite Heideggerian.'
But the real question underlying this paradigmatically inauthentiuc
gesturte, it seems to me, is as follows. Will we, the next
generation of Heidegger scholars, post-Heideggerian thinkers if not
Heideggerians, continue unquestioned the hostile rhetoric
accompanying the turf wars and ideological gerrymandering of our
predecesors, or will we continue to foster a broader and more
inclusive sense of discursive community, a community which practices
what it preaches and is thus respectful of difference?
Whatever the reasons behind this anti-Dreyfus rhetoric, which I must
confess baffles me completely, it is certain that his work--in
addition to its unrivalled clarity of exposition--embodies this
respect for alterity, which is surely among the most important of
the legacies which Heideggeer's thinking has bequeaeathed to the Western
philosophical tradition.
Iain Thomson
UCSD Philosophy
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------