Re: decker150: Help with Heidegger
- Thanks Barger.
I guess that I would like philosophical terms to have an explicit
meaning concisely expressed within a single simple scentence. For
example, I find that the term 'ontic' has a simple meaning, 'the way
But often times, the elaborate definitions are conmstructed with more
equally ambiguous terms. When it is stated that "pre-ontological--
"ontic" refers to knowing real or actual objects", that seems to be
consistent with my understand of the 'ontic' as 'the way things are';
combined into a blended expression, we might get'the way real objects
or actual objects are'. But the knowing part is not well explained.
Knowing? It was sense of the word? Knowing it rationally or
experiencially? In a tacit manner or in an expressed manner? These
are the kind of questions I find myself always stuck with. And
here's another: Is the 'pre-ontological' the same 'as' the ontic or
merely a qualifier or description of it. I understand the
ontological as 'the structure of being'. So, is the pre-ontological
the state of situation or 'what-is' before the structure. What
is 'pre' about it as opposed to strictly a full blown ontological?
The ontos and the logos suggest an systematic (study) rationale about
the structure; something like theology or philology are 'studies'. I
imagine that the pre-ontological suggest something before this
systematic rationale or before the studying begins; almost on the
parallel with pre-reflective consciousness.
Regarding the statement: "Knowing that gathers beings together in
terms of what makes them to be such in their Being is "ontological";
When this ontological Knowing is posssessed but not adverted to, it
is called pre-ontological. Awareness in the condition of natural
knowing is simultaneously ontic and pre-ontological."
My thoughts: How can 'knowing' gather anything, especially, how does
it gather 'beings together'? I can gather my thoughts together. I
can gather my perceptions together into a reflection of some specific
being or beings, but the idea of gathering 'beings'. Is it an
abstraction called being without any specific embodiment that I
gather? Is it the gathering of the imagination about being, of a
concept, or a formal meaning? And what is this 'awareness in the
condition of natural knowing'. What is 'natural knowing? Is it the
same as pure sensation of things without the aid or function of the
thinking and rational processes?
I would like to hear more sound minded thinking on the subjects that
break away from the presuptuous and ambiguous terminology, to bring
more direct and clear meaning to a discussion.
--- In Sartre@y..., barger@j... wrote:
> William J. Richardson, S.J., in
> "Heidegger: Through Phenomenology to
> Thought" (1967) offers these
> pre-ontological--"ontic" refers to
> knowing real or actual objects; Knowing
> that gathers beings together in terms of
> what makes them to be such in their
> Being is "ontological"; When this
> ontological Knowing is posssessed but
> not adverted to, it is called
> pre-ontological. Awareness in the
> condition of natural knowing is
> simultaneously ontic and pre-ontological.
> "Let the analysis of finite
> transcendence, then, start with
> There-being in that condition where it
> is most victim to its finitude:
> thrown-down among beings and immersed in
> them, There-being's unique prerogative
> lies lost in forgotten-ness. This is
> its every-day condition. Let it be
> called "every-day-ness."..."It is
> consummate ordinariness." (p. 48)
> The starting point is where "the
> everydayness of There-being (is) lost
> in a forgotten-ness of its self."...
> ..."(I)t has forgotten the very
> prerogative that constitutes its
> uniqueness; it has "fallen from," "taken
> flight from" its authentic self, it is
> lost in inauthenticity." (p. 70)
> "...Being is temporal, for it is sheer
> Presence. The temporality of Being is
> implicit, as well, when (Heidegger)
> insists that the horizon of
> objectiveness, because finite, includes
> time as an essential component. It may
> be inferred, too, from the analysis of
> the transcendental imaginatiion as
> original time, whether we take the
> imagination as the root of time or time
> as the root of the transcendental
> imagination." (p. 148-149) (Richardson
> here is explaining the connection
> between Heidegger's thought
> and Kant's notion that the mind
> organizes experience in time and space).
> "Since There-being is ultimately a
> temporal being, it is essentially
> historical as well. The analysis of the
> historicity of There-being, then, is no
> more than an explicitation and further
> elaboration of what is already implied
> lin the study of temporality." (p. 90)
> Richardson's work is the most
> comprehensive study of Heidegger I know
> of, and the index of his book refers to
> all of Heidegger's technical expressions
> with appropriate page references.
> However, he is sometimes almost as
> obscure as Heidegger and the book (which
> covers all phases of Heidegger's work to
> the end) is 764 pages including the
> index. However, if
> you really want to get into Heidegger's
> though, I know of no better source. Of
> course, Richardson is a Jesuit but they
> have been perhaps the leading scholars
> in the field of phenomenology.
> Bill Barger
> Bill Barger--Manhattan Beach.
> FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> Get your FREE @... email!