Heidegger and the how of time in response to Will Brown
- Being is never and it's always and not yet complete or presence until death. My Horizon is time and it ends at death. You catch me eating a steak at lunch and you say this is my self. Yet, at dinner, I'm eating raw fish or sashimi and you say this is my self. In the next morning, you see me catching the fish for someone else; sashimi and you say this is I. The movement of the flesh and the blood is the movement in time of Being in the world. It never stops for one to paint a picture of it or to photograph it. I can't run it through a Skinner box with some reward, and punishment. What do I achieve by attaching a counting device with a clock to it. I can read out of time intervals of achievement and failure. This isn't grasping the ontology of Being in the world and it's not a clarification of the concept of self.
I really would like your help as I don't grasp how I'm saying to the effect the temporal sense of self as the end all of Being. Note I always and not yet capitalize Being in the Heidegger sense. It's not a question of who I'm and it's a question of how in my potential, projecting possibilities as freedom of choice as creative and alienating labor working, moving, touching, and breathing in the in its there-alone. There's no who. The who if you wish might the flesh and blood I in its there-alone. The self is no more than one static moment in time for George Herbert Mead to make a triple cross-classification table at a particular N and make an extrapolation for General Motors to sell a certain amount of vehicles. This isn't the unfolding of the potential of man. This isn't the discovering of the projecting of man. This isn't the revealing of the possibilities of man. Mead's self is nothing more than harnessing man like a machine to create labor power to create wealth for Capitalism. Being isn't a container you pour knowledge into and expect to get feelings, actions, ecstasy, and moods when one empties the container.
I might own a picture and yet the picture changes every second or every sentence I write. I swim a mile in the swimming pool and from the start of the swim to the end of the swim; I don't own the same picture. The Being in time isn't presence and it's only the existence of the flesh and blood in movement in the pool. I only need the concept of the self if I want to submit as a slave in Hegel terms to [a] capitalism, [b] theology and ethics, and [c] the political system supporting capitalism, or [d] the culture as George Herbert Mead writes about. I'm free to make my choices and accept my death with the risks and the cliffs of existence. Being is a possibility in time and it's sucking out of the future to live in the present. The past is only a systems of [a] I could have, [b] I should have, [c] I might have, and [d] I didn't. To much of the self as coming from GHM, Carl Jung, and Carl Rogers comes from this past and not one's future.
In Being, nothing is missing. In my possibilities, I create Being. If I don't create, another possibility there's nothing missing in Being. I'm not in disjunction with Being. I'm not in disconnecting with Being. I'm Being in the world. I'm Being in the there. I live in the in its there-alone. There's only a sense of time and not timeless. Being is finite and infinite. You are trying to introduce a sub consciousness or unconsciousness into Being and it just isn't there. In fact, the sub consciousness and unconsciousness isn't in the self either. There's no identity and how can it be missing. Note my use of how and not who. I'm a body of flesh and blood and I don't need to make a picture, an image, a representation, a reference or a symbol of it as it already exists and I own it every second of my life until death.
Being isn't into self-definition and it's into possibilities of living in the existence and using its creative labor power for play and the survival and preservation of its flesh and blood and not some infinite approach to God. There's no self. If the self exists and it's in my big toe and I loose my big toe in cutting my own grass in my backyard, how do I exist? Note the use of the how question. Visit an emergency room in a hospital and watch the surgeons put people back together after trauma and you will see there's no self. There's no identity. I agree one is the painter of picture and yet and always, the creative labor power of Being is in the picture. You as the capitalist may force me to paint the picture and then steal it from me to sell and make a profit and yet I'm still the creator of the picture and I'm in it. Try selling a Monet or similar artist to Museum of Modern Art in New York City and tell them Monet is not in the picture. They will arrest you for loitering. When you stop painting, what you have is existence and Being in the world and not presence.
I'm not in a surprising mood of what side of Being in the world you are in and I'm not certain it's on opposite sides. Not believing in absolutes and much less absolute disjunctions, I'm trying to deal with flesh and blood and not metaphors. The communication isn't between us and it's in us in our movement, touch, and breathing. If we are ships passing in the night or in the daytime, does it make any difference? Since I see I as Being in the world and you the same how is it important I must identify you as a ship to be able to communicate with, in, and to you. Philosophy needs to be more than sixth grade idle chatter. How is it I want to own an interference pattern? I thank you for the silly wily and pulling my leg. Support statehood for Palestine.
Copyright December 30, 2002 by Richard Radandt at richradandt@... page 1 0f 1.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]