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

Re: Ontico-ontological

Expand Messages
  • decker150
    Well, there is much to reply about. First of all, I like your post. My Reply: The ontological project is to interpret Being through the logical process.
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 9, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Well, there is much to reply about. First of all, I like your post.

      My Reply: The ontological project is to interpret Being through the logical process. Meaning is it's necessary trait. Logical reason is
      meaningful. Interpretation is mainly a clarification made possible through the 'use of words', which is why ontology is a logos. If we
      make a comparison of epistemology and ontology, yes one is about Being and the other Knowledge, but they are both 'studies', both
      interpretive, both clarify their own subjects, and they both 'put words to use' in a logical context. But at a deeper level, a more
      fundamental level, the distinction between the ontic and the ontology is that ontology is a derivative of the ontic, much as you make
      the comparison of logical reason to consciousness.

      You said: In his explanation of the "phenomenon of the 'as'-structure", which you mention below, Heidegger would probably disagree
      with this...
      >
      > > Joe said: "human consciousness, especially highly developed philosophical thinking is an interpretive / logical process."
      >
      You said: Should "human consciousness" and "highly developed philosophical thinking" be placed in such close proximity? The
      latter is a derivation of the former (H. would say a very distant derivation), and while both are interpretive in nature, only the latter
      seems relevant to logic (which is also a derivation).

      My reply: To clarify my statement. Human consciousness begins as the pre-reflective, but has the capability by development to
      become in it's potentiality, a developed philosophical ability. You are right to suggest that the two do not belong together, yet
      philosophical thought is nontheless still human consciousness, made possible through the use and gathering of words (a logos).
      >
      You said: "For Heidegger "raw experience" as you seem to mean it is only possible by making a "readjustment". The "as" is
      fundamental to anything we experience:

      My Reply: By 'anything, do you mean everything? Otherwise you have made a good clarification. It seems that Heidegger
      understood this readjustment not so much as deliberate, but one that occurs, say, when you're lost and can not find your directions.
      Something pulls us out of 'the state of familiarity', and our lostness in "the they". Sartre's book titled Nausea captured this moment,
      as his character stared at the roots of a tree, seeing them all twisted and without meaning. The readjustment occurs involuntarially
      when we are shocked and drawn into an awareness other than our usualy and conditioned rational response. But I imagine that we
      could deliberately readjust (an intentional privation) if we had the proper training.

      You said: "Note that by "understanding" Heidegger means the most fundamental character of our Being-in-the-world rather than some
      variety of cognition: "Understanding is the existential Being of Dasein's own potentiality-for-Being; and it is so in such a way that this
      Being discloses in itself what its Being is capable of" (p. 184).

      My Reply: Well said. These points refer to Da-sein as 'care'. We must 'understand', because it is essential for our own survival.

      * * *
      You Said: "What leads you to believe this? Meditative states are specifically *not* about entities or even "about" anything at all; the
      point is to clear one's consciousness of "things" altogether.

      My Reply: "The mediation is a means to an end. During the means, you clear your consciousness of 'knowing, thinking' and achieve
      what Buddhist called the 'no mind'. Meditation, during the means-stage, clears the mind of particular things (entities as you call
      them). But after a state of concentration occurs, the higher level of consciousness is achieved with a new clarity. One then is able to
      view the entities with 'new eyes'. The one in meditation does not go around blind; they see as much as you or I, but without the
      interference of the temporal phases of thought. But getting there, that is the trick. Once achieve, meditation allows you to hear the
      purity of sound, the purity of sight. The Buddhist is able to 'see'; they are not blind. I imagine that this purest form of sensory
      experience touches upon the ontic and takes the person back to the pre-reflective state of awareness that is generally lost through the
      adultration of reason and language. Meditation at the 'end stage', results in a high range of awareness that does not need the logical
      process for that particular achievement.

      Thanks so much for your contribution - Joe
    • Leon McQuaid
      this is a big help ... _________________________________________________________________ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE*
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 9, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        this is a big help



        >Well, there is much to reply about. First of all, I like your post.
        >
        >My Reply: The ontological project is to interpret Being through the
        >logical process. Meaning is it's necessary trait. Logical reason is
        >meaningful. Interpretation is mainly a clarification made possible through
        >the 'use of words', which is why ontology is a logos. If we
        >make a comparison of epistemology and ontology, yes one is about Being and
        >the other Knowledge, but they are both 'studies', both
        >interpretive, both clarify their own subjects, and they both 'put words to
        >use' in a logical context. But at a deeper level, a more
        >fundamental level, the distinction between the ontic and the ontology is
        >that ontology is a derivative of the ontic, much as you make
        >the comparison of logical reason to consciousness.
        >
        >You said: In his explanation of the "phenomenon of the 'as'-structure",
        >which you mention below, Heidegger would probably disagree
        >with this...
        > >
        > > > Joe said: "human consciousness, especially highly developed
        >philosophical thinking is an interpretive / logical process."
        > >
        >You said: Should "human consciousness" and "highly developed philosophical
        >thinking" be placed in such close proximity? The
        >latter is a derivation of the former (H. would say a very distant
        >derivation), and while both are interpretive in nature, only the latter
        >seems relevant to logic (which is also a derivation).
        >
        >My reply: To clarify my statement. Human consciousness begins as the
        >pre-reflective, but has the capability by development to
        >become in it's potentiality, a developed philosophical ability. You are
        >right to suggest that the two do not belong together, yet
        >philosophical thought is nontheless still human consciousness, made
        >possible through the use and gathering of words (a logos).
        > >
        >You said: "For Heidegger "raw experience" as you seem to mean it is only
        >possible by making a "readjustment". The "as" is
        >fundamental to anything we experience:
        >
        >My Reply: By 'anything, do you mean everything? Otherwise you have made a
        >good clarification. It seems that Heidegger
        >understood this readjustment not so much as deliberate, but one that
        >occurs, say, when you're lost and can not find your directions.
        >Something pulls us out of 'the state of familiarity', and our lostness in
        >"the they". Sartre's book titled Nausea captured this moment,
        >as his character stared at the roots of a tree, seeing them all twisted and
        >without meaning. The readjustment occurs involuntarially
        >when we are shocked and drawn into an awareness other than our usualy and
        >conditioned rational response. But I imagine that we
        >could deliberately readjust (an intentional privation) if we had the proper
        >training.
        >
        >You said: "Note that by "understanding" Heidegger means the most
        >fundamental character of our Being-in-the-world rather than some
        >variety of cognition: "Understanding is the existential Being of Dasein's
        >own potentiality-for-Being; and it is so in such a way that this
        >Being discloses in itself what its Being is capable of" (p. 184).
        >
        >My Reply: Well said. These points refer to Da-sein as 'care'. We must
        >'understand', because it is essential for our own survival.
        >
        >* * *
        >You Said: "What leads you to believe this? Meditative states are
        >specifically *not* about entities or even "about" anything at all; the
        >point is to clear one's consciousness of "things" altogether.
        >
        >My Reply: "The mediation is a means to an end. During the means, you clear
        >your consciousness of 'knowing, thinking' and achieve
        >what Buddhist called the 'no mind'. Meditation, during the means-stage,
        >clears the mind of particular things (entities as you call
        >them). But after a state of concentration occurs, the higher level of
        >consciousness is achieved with a new clarity. One then is able to
        >view the entities with 'new eyes'. The one in meditation does not go
        >around blind; they see as much as you or I, but without the
        >interference of the temporal phases of thought. But getting there, that is
        >the trick. Once achieve, meditation allows you to hear the
        >purity of sound, the purity of sight. The Buddhist is able to 'see'; they
        >are not blind. I imagine that this purest form of sensory
        >experience touches upon the ontic and takes the person back to the
        >pre-reflective state of awareness that is generally lost through the
        >adultration of reason and language. Meditation at the 'end stage', results
        >in a high range of awareness that does not need the logical
        >process for that particular achievement.
        >
        >Thanks so much for your contribution - Joe
        >

        _________________________________________________________________
        MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE*
        http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.