On Mon, 30 Oct 1995 00:52:26 -0400 you wrote:
Hi William. ...aeh.... Nik!!!
> In another example there is the acorn growing into the oak tree.
>Looking at Being as a "what" you would *describe* this growth with a series
>of pictures (for example) taken every five minutes during the lifetime of
>the tree. Then you would say "See! This is how an acorn grows into an oak
>tree." In a more *organic*, "How" description, the *growing* can not be
>shown on a series of pictures. In fact, the growing is exactly what the
>pictures can not show. The Being is lost to the camera because, with
>thecamera, Being simply becomes a list of things that *are* at this or that
>particular moment. In a "how" answer, the Being is the growing (the
>Be-comming). It is movement and "how are you?" becomes answerable in terms
>closer to "I am typing an e-mail" or "I am sitting in a chair", where the
>emphasis would be (correctly, I believe) upon the action and not on the noun.
Yes, thats the correct transformation of the distinction, I have made
between "what" and "how". Your explanation is great and very clear.
Thank you. I like your style expressing difficult cases in clear
words.
>I get bogged down because (when I argue with people who only know the later
>works) they seem to treat "Care" as more of an action than I would allow it
>after a thourough reading of B&T. I see "Care" as a term that describes
>what Dasien is, not in the sense of "caring for my rat (or mom or brother or
>friends or country etc)" but simply as a term that encompasses all of the
>things like "being-in-the-world" and "state-of-mind" and the rest of that
>lot. I can see the argument that Dasien is, in a very strong way,
>"careing-for", but do not quite see it as that simple a term in B&T. Perhaps
>I am waaaaay off base (this has been known to happen). Any helpful hints on
>clearing this up for me?
Sorry, we have misunderstood us. Your explanation, in my view, is
correct. "Care" in B&T is no action like "I care for my cat". "Careing
for" is the term for intersubjective existence. But I think, care in
B&T is - or have to be - more than/as (???) a "description" of
Dasein.
Why no description? First: Heidegger makes no descriptive
phenomenology wich describes our emotions, feelings or what we see and
taste. He says, that the structure of Dasein is no direct phenomenon,
we have immediatly in our consciousness (õ7A in B&T). This kind of
phenomenon calls Heidgger with the term "was sich zumeist und
zunaechst zeigt" (B&T, õ7B, p35 in german text) (what you mean with
"empirical"). The phenomenon, Heidegger means for his own method of
phenomenology is "was sich zun?chst und zumeist gerade nicht (!!!!!!)
zeigt" (p35).
And that means, in my view: the structure of care for example is the
presupposition (!) to be as "I am" (this is the
transzendental-philosphical turn of Heideggers method), but now he
says: the presuppositions are not formal or a product of our
reflection (like Fichte or Kant would say. This would be a "what").
Heidegger says more: we are (!) our presuppositions - and that is only
a "how". Because we execute (shit... I have no other word for that
what I mean: Vollzug) our structure, could we exist as "open" Dasein.
And because we execute our existence, there is no metaphysical
difference between a "what" and a substance. And I think, that means -
in more difficulty words (...) the same as you meant by flowing.
Flowing is executing the self.
hmmm... at the weekend (...no haloween party _grin), the what and how
distinction didn't go out of my mind. Heidegger makes another
difference: He don't say: "What I am?", he says "Who I am?". This
difference is similar to the first distinction. The tradition want to
determine man with the what-question: what is human being? When you
give an answer to this question, the determination is always the same.
You need answering only one (!!) time. If you ask the who-question,
you cannot give a determination be valid all the time. You have to or
could ask this question in every moment of life - and there is in
every moment another answer (because of the structure of time). No
determination ("open").
I hope, that you can understand my notes.
- Greetings, Christian
Christian Lotz
chrlotz@xxxxxxx
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
Hi William. ...aeh.... Nik!!!
> In another example there is the acorn growing into the oak tree.
>Looking at Being as a "what" you would *describe* this growth with a series
>of pictures (for example) taken every five minutes during the lifetime of
>the tree. Then you would say "See! This is how an acorn grows into an oak
>tree." In a more *organic*, "How" description, the *growing* can not be
>shown on a series of pictures. In fact, the growing is exactly what the
>pictures can not show. The Being is lost to the camera because, with
>thecamera, Being simply becomes a list of things that *are* at this or that
>particular moment. In a "how" answer, the Being is the growing (the
>Be-comming). It is movement and "how are you?" becomes answerable in terms
>closer to "I am typing an e-mail" or "I am sitting in a chair", where the
>emphasis would be (correctly, I believe) upon the action and not on the noun.
Yes, thats the correct transformation of the distinction, I have made
between "what" and "how". Your explanation is great and very clear.
Thank you. I like your style expressing difficult cases in clear
words.
>I get bogged down because (when I argue with people who only know the later
>works) they seem to treat "Care" as more of an action than I would allow it
>after a thourough reading of B&T. I see "Care" as a term that describes
>what Dasien is, not in the sense of "caring for my rat (or mom or brother or
>friends or country etc)" but simply as a term that encompasses all of the
>things like "being-in-the-world" and "state-of-mind" and the rest of that
>lot. I can see the argument that Dasien is, in a very strong way,
>"careing-for", but do not quite see it as that simple a term in B&T. Perhaps
>I am waaaaay off base (this has been known to happen). Any helpful hints on
>clearing this up for me?
Sorry, we have misunderstood us. Your explanation, in my view, is
correct. "Care" in B&T is no action like "I care for my cat". "Careing
for" is the term for intersubjective existence. But I think, care in
B&T is - or have to be - more than/as (???) a "description" of
Dasein.
Why no description? First: Heidegger makes no descriptive
phenomenology wich describes our emotions, feelings or what we see and
taste. He says, that the structure of Dasein is no direct phenomenon,
we have immediatly in our consciousness (õ7A in B&T). This kind of
phenomenon calls Heidgger with the term "was sich zumeist und
zunaechst zeigt" (B&T, õ7B, p35 in german text) (what you mean with
"empirical"). The phenomenon, Heidegger means for his own method of
phenomenology is "was sich zun?chst und zumeist gerade nicht (!!!!!!)
zeigt" (p35).
And that means, in my view: the structure of care for example is the
presupposition (!) to be as "I am" (this is the
transzendental-philosphical turn of Heideggers method), but now he
says: the presuppositions are not formal or a product of our
reflection (like Fichte or Kant would say. This would be a "what").
Heidegger says more: we are (!) our presuppositions - and that is only
a "how". Because we execute (shit... I have no other word for that
what I mean: Vollzug) our structure, could we exist as "open" Dasein.
And because we execute our existence, there is no metaphysical
difference between a "what" and a substance. And I think, that means -
in more difficulty words (...) the same as you meant by flowing.
Flowing is executing the self.
hmmm... at the weekend (...no haloween party _grin), the what and how
distinction didn't go out of my mind. Heidegger makes another
difference: He don't say: "What I am?", he says "Who I am?". This
difference is similar to the first distinction. The tradition want to
determine man with the what-question: what is human being? When you
give an answer to this question, the determination is always the same.
You need answering only one (!!) time. If you ask the who-question,
you cannot give a determination be valid all the time. You have to or
could ask this question in every moment of life - and there is in
every moment another answer (because of the structure of time). No
determination ("open").
I hope, that you can understand my notes.
- Greetings, Christian
Christian Lotz
chrlotz@xxxxxxx
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------