Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

FWD: RE: EVERYDAY WITS REDEUX

Expand Messages
  • Gary Moore
    ... From: Gary Moore To: heidegger@lists.village.virginia.edu Sent: April 29, 2000 7:33:42 PM GMT Subject: RE: EVERYDAY WITS REDEUX ...
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 30, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      ------Original Message------
      From: Gary Moore <gottlos45@...>
      To: heidegger@...
      Sent: April 29, 2000 7:33:42 PM GMT
      Subject: RE: EVERYDAY WITS REDEUX


      > ------Original Message------
      > From: Thom <beingthere@...>
      > To: heidegger@...
      > Sent: April 26, 2000 4:22:43 PM GMT
      > Subject: Re: Everyday wits
      >
      >
      > On Wed, 26 April 2000, Gary Moore wrote:
      > >
      > > BEING AND TIME takes a very radical view of dasein's authentic
      appropriation of tradition which, by necessity, completely takes it apart
      and puts it back together again....


      THOM WHITBY:
      > Does this happen in _Being and Time_, or is this what BT was *supposed* to
      > do, but Heidegger couldn't do it, at the "moment" of BT, but rather did
      the
      > deconstruction / reconstruction over the next two decades?
      >
      RE: GARY C MOORE:
      It happens in B&T but not with the terms
      "deconstruction/reconstruction". What he says is, "Authentic existentiell
      understanding is so far from extricating itself from traditional
      interpretedness that it always grasps its chosen possibility in resolution
      from that interpretation and in opposition to it, and yet again for it.
      "The resoluteness in which Dasein comes back to itself discloses the
      actual factical possibilities of authentic existing IN TERMS OF THE HERITAGE
      which that resoluteness TAKES OVER as thrown. Resolute coming back to
      throwness involves HANDING ONESELF OVER to traditional possibilities,
      although not necessarily AS traditional ones . . . . Only the anticipation
      of death drives every chance and 'preliminary' possibility out. Only being
      free FOR death gives Da-sein its absolute goal and knocks existence into its
      finitude. . . . . This is how we designate the primordial occurrence of
      Da-sein that lies in authentic resoluteness in which it HAND ITSELF DOWN to
      itself, free for death, in a possibility that it inherited and yet has
      chosen" (German 383-4, Stambaugh 351).
      This is ambiguous but necessarily implies a choosing of what is
      possible as acceptable tradition ("although not necessarily AS traditional
      ones"). Death, one's ownmost, determines the meaning of tradition ("death
      gives Da-sein its absolute goal") which logically implies a reconfiguration
      of that tradition as one's ownmost. In other words, tradition can exist for
      dasein only as in its own image. This is made clearer by another quote about
      historiography:
      "Rather, even HISTORIOGRAPHICAL disclosure temporalizes itself OUT OF
      THE FUTURE. The "SELECTION" of what is to become a possible object for
      historiography HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE in the factical existentiell CHOICE of
      the historicity of Da-sein, in which historiography first arises and IS
      uniquely.
      "The historiographical disclosure of the 'past' is grounded in fateful
      retrieve and is so far from being 'subjective' that it alone guarantees the
      'objectivity' of historiography. For the objectivity of a science is
      primarily regulated by the question whether that science can unconcealedly
      CONFRONT understanding with the being belonging to it as its theme in the
      primordiality of its being. In no science are the 'universal validity' of
      standards and the claims to 'universality' that are demanded by the they and
      its common sense LESS possible criteria of 'truth' than in authentic
      historiography" (German 395, Stambaugh 360-1).
      ". . . The historicity of Da-sein, in which historiography first arises
      and IS uniquely" explicitly identifies the 'singulare tantum' of dasein as
      history itself as is also explicitely stated
      at 388/355: ". . . what is historical is being-in-the-world. THE OCCURENCE
      OF HISTORY IS THE OCCURENCE OF BEING-IN-THE-WORLD". "Historiographical
      disclosure . . . guarantees the 'objectivity' of historiography" and thus
      puts the terms 'subjective', 'objective' and 'universal validity' out of
      business, replaced by disclosure of being-in-the-world or dasein which is
      the only necessary concept. "The authentic retrieve of a possibility of
      existence that has been--the possibility that Da-sein may choose its heroes
      .. . ."(385/352) means that dasein explicitly determines what tradition is
      going to be like. "We MUST presuppose truth, it MUST BE as the disclosedness
      of Da-sein, just as Da-sein itself MUST always be as my own and this
      particular Dasein" (228/209-10), i.e., the 'singulare tantum' of dasein. "IN
      ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESSENTIAL KIND OF BEING APPROPRIATE TO DA-SEIN, ALL
      TRUTH IS RELATIVE TO THE BEING OF DA-SEIN" (227/208). So therefore it is
      implicit in dasein's authenticity that it must by necessity take tradition
      as retrieved apart and put it back together again to make it accord with its
      "absolute goal", its ownmost death.


      GARY C MOORE:
      > > as dasein actually
      > > knows it....
      >
      THOM WHITBY:
      > As Dasein actually knows? Or as Dasein *can* come to know it? "Actually",
      > Dasein is for the most part unaware of its traditionality, in fallen
      > everydayness? As you say:
      >
      GARY C MOORE:
      > >... instead of the 'everyday' passive acceptance of a vague theme of
      > > what tradition is that never examines it rationally in detail or judge
      > even if it fits together coherently.
      >
      THOM WHITBY:
      > It's not plausible that:

      GARY C MOORE:
      > > from an
      > > authentic point of view .... it can be
      > > just as stupid or intelligent as inauthenticity
      >
      RE: GARY C MOORE:
      It is plausible because: "Wanting-to-have-a-conscience resolves itself
      for being guilty" (305/282),i.e., it makes a choice, assumes responsibility
      for it, and cannot turn time back and change the choice to the other
      possibility. ". . . As a potentiality-of-being, it always stands in one
      possibility or another; it is constantly NOT other possibilities and has
      relinquished them in its existentiell project. As thrown, the project is not
      only determined by the nullity the ground but is itself AS PROJECT
      essentially NULL. Again, this definition by no means signifies the ontic
      property of being 'unsuccessful' or of 'no value' but an existential
      constituent of the structure of the being of projecting. This nullity
      belongs to the being-free of Da-sein for its existentiell possibilities. But
      freedom IS only the choice of the one, that is, in bearing the fact of not
      having chosen and not being able also to chose the others . . . CARE IS IN
      ITS ESSENCE THOROUGHLY PERMEATED WITH NULLITY. Care, the being of Da-sein,
      thus means, as thrown project: being the (null) ground of a nullity. And
      that means that DA-SEIN AS SUCH IS GUILTY if our formal existential
      definition of guilt as being-the-ground of a nullity is valid" (285/262-3)
      which means, even though within authenticity, you can make the 'wrong'
      choice according to context, regret it, and wish it were otherwise. But that
      is an "existentiell", "factical" choice which must be within the world of
      the everyday always threatening to disperse into the 'They' self, thereby by
      simply making a choice whether 'right' or 'wrong' dasein, as it were falls
      again, because it can only preserve its 'innocence' in the nullity of its
      ground before it factically begins to determine itself by its choices. And
      within a nullity there is no standard of values, no ethics to guide you, so
      whatever your choice, you assume absolute responsibility for it. This is why
      Sartre's term "bad faith" is so good, because no matter what choice you
      make, you have turned down the others, and there is no justification, no
      ground (since that ground is a nullity), to say the choice you made is
      'better' than the ones rejected. The only 'justification' is in the context
      of the everyday world of the 'They' self. Ergo, it is made in "bad faith".
      >From the resolve and reticence of authenticity a choice must be made, and
      for these reasons that choice can be "as stupid or intelligent as
      inauthenticity".


      THOM WHITBY:
      > Are you presuming an "everyday" (rationalistic) sense of "practical wits"?
      >
      RE:GARY C MOORE:
      At the 'they' self's 'best', yes.

      GARY C MOORE:
      > >: after all in the everyday world one must keep one's practical wits
      sharp -- tradition is a trash pile,

      THOM WHITBY:
      > Tradition is not a trash pile. It is a landscape that has some trash (as
      > goes life). Some trash makes good landfill. Some landfill will make a poor
      > basis for new building. Etc.
      >
      RE: GARY C MOORE:
      Of course tradition comes to you as a trash pile. It has neither
      order nor meaning till you give them to it. It comes you you helter-skelter,
      what you will judge trivial and what you will judge important all thrown
      together in trash equality. That is, unless you say it comes from God . . .
      and I would rather not get into that.

      GARY C MOORE:
      > >... and stays that way with the 'They' self.

      THOM WHITBY:
      > Yes, if one stays with the mass.

      RE: GARY C MOORE:
      It must be nice to be fantastically rich and able to cut yourself
      completely off from the world--as well, of course, as being a baron.

      GARY C MOORE:
      > > 'Everyday' tradition is something one nods to with respect but otherwise
      > > ignores...
      >
      THOM WHITBY:
      > I don't.

      RE: GARY C MOORE:
      Nod to or ignore? Or both? Then what?

      GARY C MOORE:
      > >...because, except for politicians and preachers (the distinction
      > > between them is diminishing), it is useless and cumbersome.
      >
      THOM WHITBY:
      > I regret to read you feel that way.

      RE: GARY C MOORE:
      Yes, it is an illness isn't it?

      GARY C MOORE:


      > >That is why we have so many 'Christians' that will convert you by hook or
      crook who have never read more than five or six whole pages of the Bible and
      otherwise only know snippets.
      >
      THOM WHITBY:


      So, show them a Christianity that will awaken them.

      RE: GARY C MOORE:
      One of the things I gained from studying Indian philosophy and religion was
      the clear realization that almost each one was written by a distinctly
      different author with sometimes an extremely distinct point of view. For
      instance, Job in the King James (still in many ways the best version: the
      translators were both extremely well educated AND honest)13:15,Though he
      slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before
      him that could serve as a good definition of a number of Greek tragedies,
      as well as having a God that could almost have come out of the Iliad. And
      then there is also Mark in that regard, as it survived, without the
      additions at the end. Taken by itself, and not interpreted away by comparing
      it to gospels with a completely different purpose, it is fascinating.
      >
      GARY C MOORE:


      > >In other words, 'everyday' tradition can be anything you want


      > > it to be and justify any act you wish to commit ....


      >
      THOM WHITBY:


      > Yet, an authentic life is not thoughtless.


      >
      RE: GARY C MOORE:
      An inauthentic life can be extremely thoughtful also, both in kind deeds and
      in intelligent, well worked out practical thinking. After all, for one
      thing, that is what technology is all about.

      GARY C MOORE:


      > > Heidegger after the rector speech seems to take on this 'They' self
      sense
      > of
      > > tradition to a large extent, justifying Mr. Whitby's comment.
      >
      THOM WHITBY:


      > I disagree. Heidegger's "Grecian" formula for German nationalism was quite


      sophisticated.

      RE: GARY C MOORE:
      I would like to hear more about this. It would be interesting to put the
      evil and the genius back together again into something more interesting
      than another bureaucrat gone amok.

      THOM WHITBY:
      After the rectorship, he withdrew into his own work.


      >
      RE: GARY C MOORE:
      As far as he withdrew, he had no choice. But he made several, now famous,
      political remarks in his lectures, at least wore his party button in Rome in
      1937 when Karl Lowith talked to him, and maintained his party membership up
      to the day the party ceased to exist. In other words, he never ceased to be
      a Nazi as far as anybody really knows.

      GARY C MOORE:


      Why did Heidegger need his fellow Germans so much?



      THOM WHITBY:


      > Did he? Seems to me, he was always the Stranger.


      >
      RE: GARY C MOORE:
      Not when he was wearing his German peasants suit, not when he was wearing
      his Hitler moustache, not when he was making political speeches, not when he
      is talking about the essence of the people in the Beitrage or
      Contributions, not when he is talking about the inner greatness of the
      Nazi cause. Otherwise, yes, I agree with you, and hopefully you can prove
      you are more right than I am.

      GARY C MOORE:


      > > He had formulated a philosophy of almost solipsistic uniqueness in the
      concept of dasein (I call it the "solipsistic aporia", i.e., it is absurd I
      created the world because I find myself thrown into it unwillingly but, on
      the other hand, as an authentic dasein, my relation to it verges on the
      solipsistic).
      >
      THOM WHITBY:


      > I believe there's no basis for this view in Heidegger's work.
      >
      RE: GARY C MOORE:
      I just quoted a number of passages strongly supporting just such a point of
      view. And on top of that, there is this: Constituted by disclosedness
      Da-sein is essentially in the truth. Disclosedness is an essential kind of
      being of Da-sein. THERE IS [GIBT ES] TRUTH ONLY INSOFAR AS DA-SEIN IS
      AND AS LONG AS IT IS. Beings are discovered only WHEN Da-sein IS, and only
      AS LONG AS Da-sein IS are they disclosed. Newtons laws, the law of
      contradiction, and any truth whatsoever , are true only as long as Da-sein
      IS. Before there was any Da-sein, there was no truth; nor will there be any
      after Da-sein is no more (226/208). Even though he says here, before there
      was any Da-sein . . ., Heidegger in the above quotes defines dasein as
      unique and always mine which precludes any being plural here. And, as
      well, he defines dasein also as the ownmost numerous times throughout B&T.

      GARY C MOORE:


      > > In BEING AND TIME he is more like Shankara achieving illumination and
      dropping the whole world as a "mere illusion".
      >
      THOM WHITBY:


      > Yes, I suppose.


      >
      RE: GARY C MOORE:
      At least from my point of view here, he would truly be a stranger.

      GARY C MOORE:


      > >Then in 1933 everything changes. Am I wrong?


      >
      THOM WHITBY:
      > Yes, I suppose.
      >
      RE: GARY C MOORE:
      Very lame. But since I would also have to prove my point, and I find that
      very tiresome right now as well as the immanent interruption of the real
      everyday world I MUST participate in, unlike you baron, I must cut it off.

      GARY C MOORE:


      > > Of course I


      > > am. Show me.


      >
      THOM WHITBY:


      > You're from Missouri, right?


      >


      RE: GARY C MOORE:
      Too many trees there, too much water, too many hills. There are real
      intellectuals there in the big city and they scare me.

      THOM WHITBY:


      > Your friendly Mr. Whitby


      >


      RE: GARY C MOORE:
      Your friendly Mr. Moore (MR? People only say that when they want money from
      me.)
      >
      >
      >
      > ______________________________________________
      >
      > Get free e-mail at http://www.britannica.com
      >
      >
      > --- from list heidegger@... ---
      >
      > ........................................................
      > iWon.com http://www.iwon.com why wouldn't you?
      > ........................................................
      >

      .........................................................
      iWon.com http://www.iwon.com why wouldn't you?
      .........................................................



      --- from list heidegger@... ---

      ........................................................
      iWon.com http://www.iwon.com why wouldn't you?
      ........................................................
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.