Re: Authenticity and consciousness

I received some interesting thoughts about the character of the self
that is being granted through the net (i.e., that is being
constructed by a force that is bigger than any of us but is
nevertheless nothing other than all of us responding to
something(s)). I thought I'd pass 'em along. Please feel free (to
add something(s)). I've mind-melded them together (which may beg
some questions about authorship/the priv. (or lack thereof) of
authorial intentions, etc., on the net. (The long bit at the end is
the post that posed some of the relevant Qs and tried to make a case
for the relevance of these issues to the discussions at the site).

Here they are:

I wonder about the "homelessness" of the net too. But I am equally
struck
at the ready intimacy of e-mail. Some guy in S. Africa has been
e-mailing
me about politics there. Perhaps both the hostility and the warmth
are a
function of *decreasing* distance rather than increasing it? No
bodies,
space-preserving rituals to stand in the way.
...Also, I think we must distinguish between the phenomenology of
e-mail and
bulletin boards. Knowing a Third watches changes everything, nicht
wahr?

About the net and electronic selfhood. One way to think about it
may be
that we construct different selfs in electronic media discussions
because
of alterations in how we sense ourselves to be "present" to one
another.
The net is fast, a lot like conversation -- you can pop off a
"You're
wrong" or "You're crazy" answer while the heat of the exchange is
still
there, but because of the distances involved you also don't have to
take
into account what the consequences would be if we were all in the
same
bar having the same talk. If we could think about your question
this
way, then the issues that would emerge would be what this talk has
been
about all along -- the relation of the subject to presence and the
relation of ethics, or values, to being.

(By the way, for those speculating on netflame
aggression, I'm the same in real life. :-)


hese questions: the implicit (even explicit) ethical content of
>
>ontological thinking; the attempt to deconstruct the metaphysical
>
>tradition by subverting the Cartesian subject with the
>
>phenomenological-existential analyses of Da-sein (and, as Michael
>
>points out, though without acknowledging the power of Dreyfus's
>
>reading, the difficulty of thinking ourselves *as* Dasein rather
>
>than subjects over-against an objectiove world); perhaps even the
>
>motivations underlying Heidegger's thinking of the authentic in B&T
>
>as those motivations evolve in the later writings, all intersect
>
>around a theme which your very dialogue both presupposes and
>
>contributes to--the construction of the self that takes place in
thi
>
>technological medium of communication. In '43, alongside another
>
>defense of 'philosophy,' we listen-in as Heidegger finds himself
>
>insisting to his students, who apparently didn't take him seriously
>
>the first time, that he really meant what he said when he told them
>
>during his previous lecture that the change from hand-writing to
>
>typewriting conceals a hidden change in the destiny of the history
>
>of being. If Heidegger found typewriting (which, ironically, is
>
>coming back into fashion through nostalgia) to be a falling-away
>
>from the direct connection of the hand-being-thinking that
>
>handwriting facilitated, what would he think of the internet? We
>
>could imagine that Heidegger the man might be deeply dismayed by
the
>
>very idea of a Heidegger-group on the net (might he not have in
>
>store for us one of his infamously precipitous condemnations, i.e.,
>
>those distance-destroying embracers of technology haven't the
>
>faintest whisp of understanding of the essence of my thinking... ).
>
>Maybe Heidegger wouldn't react this way (or maybe he would while
>
>still being secretly thrilled, and then finally coming around and
>
>cozying up to the idea, as he did to his popularity in France), but
>
>it is hard to imagin Heidegger-the-man not condemning out of hand
>
>this very medium gathered around the desire to talk about
>
>Heidegger-the-philosoher, let alone embracing it (Derrida the man
>
>has yet to get his powerbook hooked up to the net).
>
> But here it is useful, for heuristic purposes at least, to
>
>distinguish between Heidegger-the-man and the tools of thought and
>
>critique which he left behind. So here I guess I am calling for a
>
>little Heideggerian reflexivity: what sort of selves are we
>
>constructing through this technological medium? What sorts of
>
>stands are we taking on the being of our there, when our there
>
>defies traditional metaphysically-based attempts at localization,
>
>conceptualization, representation, etc.? What, where, and how are
>
>we here; how do we find ourselves self-constructing and
>
>deconstructing? And, finally the reason for the perverse element
of
>
>my fascination with your exchanges, why is hostility always on deck
>
>(if not ready to hand)? Can the propensity to the flame be
>
>understood simply as a loss of the face-to-face (a technological
>
>confirmation of Levinas's critique of the lack of the ethical in
the
>
>Heideggerian ontology), or does this ready rage not bespeak a more
>
>inarticulate, if not ineffable longing, the longing for, and
>
>readiness to battle for, a new self-understanding, a
>
>post-metaphysical understanding of self articulated precisely
>
>through this technological medium, a desire to seize the positive
>
>potentialities of technology, perhaps achieving some measure of the
>
>homecoming through alterity for which Heidegger called? Could this
>
>call still be bouncing off technological relay-stations, waiting
for
>
>us to answer it?
>
> As we respond within technology, we respond to
>
>technology, and to our (emerging) selves, and thus to being.



What are we (doing)?



--- from list [email protected] ---

------------------

Partial thread listing: