Martinot wrote:
"Is "one" (the
"other" non-numeric "one") authentic only to the extent one does not
think about oneself, one is not conscious of oneself as a self, or in
personhood, or as consciousness?"
I don't know. I think you'd be pointing to an even greater lostness.
You'd be lopping off the "vague understanding of being". Heidegger seems
to say that the vague understanding of being gets trapped in the
conceptual schemas which arise out of the work/object oriented world,
and that the way to "get to Dasein" is to, in a certain way, come up
from behind. the conceptual moves might be like getting salt on a birds
tail, though we could hope that there's more than a ruse involved. Does
anyone remember this passage, incidentally, from Being and Time. I find
it striking. In any event, he seems to be working in another direction:
to the "fateful" grasping of Being by Being, in something of/like the
question "what is dasein", for whom the rough and ready answer is, of
course, this being which has being as an issue for itself. The lopping
off into the kind of "unconsciousness" reminds me of so many spiritual
practices which try to "get rid" of the self, in a number of ways,
perhaps by thwarting it's progression of understanding and mastery, and
I have lots of suspicisions about what is actually involved. Heidegger
proceeds not by simply "hacking away the ego", but precisely through
exactly the moves he makes (refurbishing, clarifying, getting clear on
phenomena, the nature of interrogation, sticking to what can be known,
and refusing facile answers, etc.)
But the thinking that Heidegger gets to is obviously not "thinking of
onesself as a self, in personhood, as consciousness". Nothing other than a
specific reading of Heidegger can supply the answer here. the reductive
answer may not be possible.
So, if, on the contrary, we grant this other movement, of the clarification
of the understanding of being in a kind of ownness/mineness, via the
carefully clarified and phenomenologically accurate progress, what do we
have? Am I pushing into the reduction I said was not possible? I think that
there is a kind of "other" language after the passage through Heidegger's
work, an example of which would be his later language. It is not properly
"reductive" but rather constitutes wholes which coalesce on the *basis* of
the full play of the prior thought. What is the word for this?
---
************************************************************************
"It is only after one ceases to reduce public affairs to the business of
dominion that the original data in the realm of human affairs will appear, or,
rather, reappear, in their authentic diversity." -- Hannah Arendt
Crises of the Republic; lying in politics, civil disobedience on violence,
thoughts on politics, and revolution. Hannah Arendt [1st ed.] New York,
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich [1972] pages 142-143
Tom Blancato
tblancato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------