Trevor;
You said; “I want to hear all your ideas............”
Do you recall when I mentioned to you that now when I listen to people I know right away if they know what they are talking about? To demonstrate what I said to you I'm going to take quite a few liberties with what you posted. It is an extremely simple sentence, but as we go through it together you will get an 'inkling' of the 'labyrinth' I have been referring to.
The dictionary defines “idea” as:
“any 'conception' existing in the 'mind' as a result of 'mental understanding', 'awareness', or 'activity'.”
#1. The very first thing you should notice is that when it comes to reading the dictionary we don't question what it says. Not even for a nanosecond do we even recognize the possibility of questioning the dictionary. We just blindly read it as if it is the final authority in the matter (“God”). Take a moment for that to sink in. Ever since the moment you could say the word 'dictionary' it has determined your 'existence' and you haven't even noticed that you didn't have a choice in the matter.
#2. The next thing you should notice is that 'idea' is associated with the words 'conception', 'mind', 'mental' 'understanding', 'awareness', and 'activity'.
Let's take a look at those words.
Conception: the act of conceiving; the state of being conceived; a notion; idea; concept:
Mind: the element, part, substance or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.; the processes of the human mind. (in other words, it's ”the processes of the human mind” that determine the existence of Mind, so, Mind defines Mind. What the hell!!)
Mental: of or pertaining to the mind (see the definition above)
Understanding: mental process of a person who comprehends; comprehension; personal interpretation: (see 'Mental' and then 'Mind', above)
Awareness: having knowledge; conscious; cognizant:
Activity: the state or quality of being active
One other word we should address that is not included in the definition of 'idea'.
Characteristic: a distinguishing quality, attribute or trait
#3. Review the list of words above. All of those words (concepts) represent one word which is the word 'idea' (concept). We use Mind to define Mind and 'concepts' to validate 'concepts'. We never question what we are doing and never question the measurability (length, width, depth, locality, mass) of the 'concept' we are using. Take a moment to notice and you will see that all of the words used to define 'idea' are 'concepts', representations of Be-ing/living, they are not living, Be-ing.
#4. Another pattern you should take note of is that in the case of 'Conception', 'idea' is used to define 'Conception' and that 'Conception' is a concept. So, 'Conception' is a concept that defines the word 'idea' and an 'idea' is a 'Conception'. What's up with that? The only thing in the definition of 'Conception' that seems to come close to being accurate is the part where it says “being conceived”, which points to Be-ing/thinking.
#5. Mind uses “the processes of the Mind" to define itself, Mental uses Mind to define itself, and Understanding uses Mind and Mental to define itself. Let's address the word 'Mind' first, it seems to be the keystone that holds the flim-flam all together.
As part of our agreements with each other, we require “proof of existence” before we accept that entities exist. 'Proof of existence' is determined by 2 criteria, measurability (length, width, depth, locality, mass) and definability. Both measurability and definability have to be present before 'proof of existence' can be accepted. Mind (and just about every other concept) has plenty of definability and absolutely no measurability. Why is it that humanity (yeh, you) demands that we use measurability and definability as the criteria for 'proof of existence' only to give a pass to Mind (and just about every other concept) when it comes to measurability? Don't you find that to be a little curious?
Mind is an ethereal concept which defines itself. It assumes that when we think, that thinking has to come from somewhere, so Mind is a representation of a container that stores 'thoughts'. Mind was inserted into our language prior to 900 AD.
The existence of Mind can't be proven. Since Mind doesn't exist what do we do with the words 'Mental' and 'Understanding' which are defined by Mind?
Is all of this becoming a little confusing? If the answer is yes, then we are on the right track. In Japan, temples have two beasts sitting on either side of the door. I opine that the temples represent Be-ing and the beasts represent confusion and doubt. You have to go through confusion and doubt to enter the temple, to 'Be' who you are. Actually, I find that you're already Be-ing who you are and letting the confusion and doubt distract you from Be-ing.
#6. Out of all those words that are used to define 'idea' there are only two characteristics which come close to representing the word 'idea'. In the definition of 'Conception' you have 'Be-ing conceived' and in the definition 'Activity' you have 'Be-ing active'. 'Idea' is a representation of the 'act' of 'conceiving'. It is a process, not a 'thing' that you yank out of a container called Mind.
#7. Glance over the words and definitions (above) and notice that if anybody tried to flim-flam you with all that misdirection, you would tell them to get the hell out of your life, pronto. You have given Merriam-Webster the status of “God” in your life and you operate (blindly) as if Merriam-Webster is “God”.
#8. The last thing you should notice is that all of this was started by one little word, 'idea', which has led to another word and then to another word and on and on. We are “The Tower of Babel”. The world dictates our existence by using a labyrinth of measurability and definability as the standard to represent Be-ing. You confuse your 'self' with the concepts of the world and turn your 'self' into a 'thing' instead of Be-ing your 'self'.
Nobody, and I really mean nobody, can disentangle you from the labyrinth of 'mis-conceptions' and presuppositions. The purpose of this is to remind you that's your job to do. Most people don't know that they need to do a serious and systematic study to attain their freedom. They actually think that it's something they are entitled to as a consequence of a proclamation or by fighting a series of wars.
Nobody cares if you do the work. As a matter-of-fact the ones not doing the work wish you wouldn't, because you will be a reminder that they aren't getting their job done.
If you can't 'hear' what I'm saying and it is not calling out to you to do something about your freedom then maybe you should stop reading my blog. Keep yourself from going through the aggravation of asking me to explain only to have me respond by telling you that it can't be explained.
If you want to argue with me about what I've written, that's okay. Just don't expect me to participate in your argument.
Trevor, do remember what started all of this? You said; "I want to hear all your ideas............"
I don't have any ideas.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Death
In terms of the measurable, definable, world, and the 'they', 'death' is interpreted as that which happens at the end of 'life'. Another word we use for the end of life is 'demise'.
For the purpose of this conversation I will use 'death' (demise) when I am speaking about what happens in the measurable, definable, world and I will use 'death' (Be-ing) when I am speaking of Be-ing.
Be aware, when people speak of 'death' they are most likely speaking about 'demise'. You can't count on them to make the distinction for you. Humans Be-ing readily interchange (confuse) the two words when they come face-to-face with their own mortality and are meaning 'demise' (what happens to a physical body, plant, animal, or man).
Let's clear up the matter of 'demise' first and be done with it. It is rather simple. 'Birth' and 'death' (demise) are two sides of the same coin. When you are 'born', 'death' (demise) is inevitable and nobody can take it away from you or do it for you. It is the only certain/uncertain certainty you have. Just about everything you do between 'birth' and 'death' (demise) is an avoidance of 'death' (demise).
Let me be very clear here. 'Death' (demise) is to be avoided at all cost.
Monuments (headstones, statues, buildings) are an attempt to extend 'living' past the point of 'death' (demise) or immortality. All of this points to one thing and that is: The moment you are born you are already 'dead' (demise), you just don't know when it will happen. Put down the turd, 'death' (demise) and refuse to play patty-cake with it, you can't do anything about it anyway.
Have you ever had a bad enough accident that it made you confront how you are living your life? Have you ever been in a precarious situation and said something along the lines of “If you'll get me out of this I'll never do such and such again” and experienced a shift in your outlook on life? What I just said is a hint that points to 'death' (Be-ing). When you 'close the door' on the way you have been Be-ing, that's another hint that points to 'death' (Be-ing). Those 'hints' are all evidence you need to assure you of the possibility of 'death' (Be-ing).
You should avoid 'death' (demise) at any cost, however, you should run towards 'death' (Be-ing) and experience 'death' (Be-ing) as many times as you can. That's where you'll find 'living' (Be-ing who you are).
'Death' (demise) is a concept we 'play patty-cake' with to remind us to 'live'. However, 'living' is not the opposite of 'death' (demise). 'Living' is something else. It doesn't happen in the realm of the measurable, definable, world, it happens in Be-ing/knowing.
'Death' (demise) is just one of a whole world of concepts we use to hide behind. Your lot in life is to deconstruct the concept of 'death' (demise) and uncover the possibility of 'death' (Be-ing/liv-ing).
Let me say it again. Your lot in life is to de-construct the 'concepts' of life and uncover the possibility that the 'concepts' of life (the measurable, definable, world, and the 'they') don't define who you are. They can only define you as a measurable, definable, thing.
Deconstructing concepts of things like gun, car, airplane are so easy that you don't even take notice. The difficult concepts are the ones that humans Be-ing use to define Be-ing. Since “you should avoid 'death' (demise) at any cost”, when you come close to 'death' (Be-ing) you turn the possibility of not being able “to prove your existence in this world” into a concept to represent Be-ing.
As you de-construct the 'concepts', one by one, and disentangle your 'self' from the labyrinth of measurabilty and definability, you come to a point where you recognize that using the 'measurabilty and definability of the world' to prove your existence never 'captured' who 'you' really are. When you discover that the 'world's concepts can no longer capture 'you', you come face-to-face with the possibility that 'you' can't prove 'you' exist, not even to your 'self'.
Physics has proven that two things cannot occupy the same space, so, when 'you' existing, come face-to-face with the possibility that you don't exist, a very interesting thing happens. When both 'you existing' and 'the possibility that you don't exist' try to occupy the same space, they cancel each other out and both disappear. What gets left in their place is 'you', Be-ing.
What you have just experienced is 'death' (Be-ing).
When you experience 'death' (Be-ing), you will discover that you are no longer a slave to proving/not proving your existence and that now you have 'room' for you to replace 'proving/not proving your existence' with something else. This is the essence of human freedom.
In 'death' (Be-ing) you answer the question "Who am I?"
This is the 'story' (representation) of what happens in "Being and Time" by Martin Heidegger.
Heidegger speaks to Be-ing. It is why I read "Being and Time" 74 times. I was running toward 'death' (Be-ing).
For the purpose of this conversation I will use 'death' (demise) when I am speaking about what happens in the measurable, definable, world and I will use 'death' (Be-ing) when I am speaking of Be-ing.
Be aware, when people speak of 'death' they are most likely speaking about 'demise'. You can't count on them to make the distinction for you. Humans Be-ing readily interchange (confuse) the two words when they come face-to-face with their own mortality and are meaning 'demise' (what happens to a physical body, plant, animal, or man).
Let's clear up the matter of 'demise' first and be done with it. It is rather simple. 'Birth' and 'death' (demise) are two sides of the same coin. When you are 'born', 'death' (demise) is inevitable and nobody can take it away from you or do it for you. It is the only certain/uncertain certainty you have. Just about everything you do between 'birth' and 'death' (demise) is an avoidance of 'death' (demise).
Let me be very clear here. 'Death' (demise) is to be avoided at all cost.
Monuments (headstones, statues, buildings) are an attempt to extend 'living' past the point of 'death' (demise) or immortality. All of this points to one thing and that is: The moment you are born you are already 'dead' (demise), you just don't know when it will happen. Put down the turd, 'death' (demise) and refuse to play patty-cake with it, you can't do anything about it anyway.
Have you ever had a bad enough accident that it made you confront how you are living your life? Have you ever been in a precarious situation and said something along the lines of “If you'll get me out of this I'll never do such and such again” and experienced a shift in your outlook on life? What I just said is a hint that points to 'death' (Be-ing). When you 'close the door' on the way you have been Be-ing, that's another hint that points to 'death' (Be-ing). Those 'hints' are all evidence you need to assure you of the possibility of 'death' (Be-ing).
You should avoid 'death' (demise) at any cost, however, you should run towards 'death' (Be-ing) and experience 'death' (Be-ing) as many times as you can. That's where you'll find 'living' (Be-ing who you are).
'Death' (demise) is a concept we 'play patty-cake' with to remind us to 'live'. However, 'living' is not the opposite of 'death' (demise). 'Living' is something else. It doesn't happen in the realm of the measurable, definable, world, it happens in Be-ing/knowing.
'Death' (demise) is just one of a whole world of concepts we use to hide behind. Your lot in life is to deconstruct the concept of 'death' (demise) and uncover the possibility of 'death' (Be-ing/liv-ing).
Let me say it again. Your lot in life is to de-construct the 'concepts' of life and uncover the possibility that the 'concepts' of life (the measurable, definable, world, and the 'they') don't define who you are. They can only define you as a measurable, definable, thing.
Deconstructing concepts of things like gun, car, airplane are so easy that you don't even take notice. The difficult concepts are the ones that humans Be-ing use to define Be-ing. Since “you should avoid 'death' (demise) at any cost”, when you come close to 'death' (Be-ing) you turn the possibility of not being able “to prove your existence in this world” into a concept to represent Be-ing.
As you de-construct the 'concepts', one by one, and disentangle your 'self' from the labyrinth of measurabilty and definability, you come to a point where you recognize that using the 'measurabilty and definability of the world' to prove your existence never 'captured' who 'you' really are. When you discover that the 'world's concepts can no longer capture 'you', you come face-to-face with the possibility that 'you' can't prove 'you' exist, not even to your 'self'.
Physics has proven that two things cannot occupy the same space, so, when 'you' existing, come face-to-face with the possibility that you don't exist, a very interesting thing happens. When both 'you existing' and 'the possibility that you don't exist' try to occupy the same space, they cancel each other out and both disappear. What gets left in their place is 'you', Be-ing.
What you have just experienced is 'death' (Be-ing).
When you experience 'death' (Be-ing), you will discover that you are no longer a slave to proving/not proving your existence and that now you have 'room' for you to replace 'proving/not proving your existence' with something else. This is the essence of human freedom.
In 'death' (Be-ing) you answer the question "Who am I?"
This is the 'story' (representation) of what happens in "Being and Time" by Martin Heidegger.
Heidegger speaks to Be-ing. It is why I read "Being and Time" 74 times. I was running toward 'death' (Be-ing).
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Philosophy Doesn't Exist!
Philosophy is not a 'thing' called science. 'It' doesn't contain patterns and principles. 'It' is not “too broad a subject for any one person to claim understanding”. You (collective 'you') treat philosophy as if it is a 'thing' to understand and you're right! Philosophy is the 'container' that holds all of your pre-existing conclusions, your pre-suppositions, and your concepts about what happens between the beginning and the end of 'philosophizing'. Your pre-existing conclusions, your pre-suppositions, and your concepts about philosophy is not philosophizing. It is kind of like the relationship between 'life' and 'living'. 'Life' is the container and 'living' is the content. 'Life' is empty and meaningless, 'living' is where the good stuff is. You're re-presentation of someone's 'life' in book or a book report is a gross injustice to the person who did the 'living' and it is always a mis-representation.
It is the same with what you call 'philosophy'. Books and reporting about the philosopher's philosophizing are empty and meaningless unless you are philosophizing. You have to step out of your subject/object world and become the conversation that is contained in the book. By 'becoming the conversation' you will sacrifice your pre-existing conclusions, your presuppositions, and your concepts.
The reason philosophy is “too broad a subject for any one person to claim understanding” is because the way it is taught and the way you read it is the culprit. When you start off on the wrong path you've already committed your 'self' to the wrong destination.
The way it really happens is that you (even as you are reading this) are Be-ing (living). You are the conversation contained in the book. Instead of taking animal rationale, res extensa, and cogito sum for granted and trying to understand them you realize that for example, cogito has gotten all the attention and the sum has been ignored. (The reason the sum has been ignored is because the 'sum' can't be contained in the measurability and definability of the world.)
As you pick at the 'threads' of concepts that make up 'philosophy' you begin to see through the pre-existing conclusions, the presuppositions, and the concepts that have been forced upon you by the 'world' and the 'they'. You discover that 'living' is not a combination of characteristics called 'life' and 'philosophizing' is not a combination of characteristics called 'philosophy'.
The source of the contents of the container called 'philosophy' is you, who you really are, Be-ing. It is not the other way around. Philosophy is not some 'concept' (thing) out there for you to understand and then, when you're done, hopefully you can accumulate everything you've learned and then know the answer to “Who Am I?”.
Humans Be-ing have been trying to do that since way before Parmenides. You'd think that after several thousand years we would have put 2 & 2 together. Alan Watts said that we “haven't graduated past 'territorial monkey”. We are still defending the same territory defined several thousand years ago and making sure we keep the other monkeys out, no matter what. (I'm howling like a monkey, I just can't put on the page.)
As you de-construct your pre-existing conclusions and presuppositions you disentangle your 'self' from the measurabilty and definability (thingdom) of 'philosophy', the 'world', and the 'they'. You come to a point where you realize that the conclusions, the presuppositions, and the 'concepts' in philosophy are distractions and can no longer be used to prove the existence of your 'self' (Be-ing). When you come face-to-face with the emptiness of the concepts you reach a point in your thinking called (by Heidegger), the "possibility of the impossibility of your existence" who you've been Be-ing dies so that you can be your 'self'. You uncover/discover that the theories, the conjecture, and 'the ability to explain' your 'self' has nothing to do with Be-ing your 'self'. This is the essence of human freedom. In Be-ing you answer the question "Who am I?"
This is what is called 'transformation'.
When you make the 'leap' from the measurabilty and definability of your pre-existing conclusions and presuppositions into Be-ing you do understand it all and 'philosophizing' becomes an adventure and not a entanglement like 'philosophy'.
It is the same with what you call 'philosophy'. Books and reporting about the philosopher's philosophizing are empty and meaningless unless you are philosophizing. You have to step out of your subject/object world and become the conversation that is contained in the book. By 'becoming the conversation' you will sacrifice your pre-existing conclusions, your presuppositions, and your concepts.
The reason philosophy is “too broad a subject for any one person to claim understanding” is because the way it is taught and the way you read it is the culprit. When you start off on the wrong path you've already committed your 'self' to the wrong destination.
The way it really happens is that you (even as you are reading this) are Be-ing (living). You are the conversation contained in the book. Instead of taking animal rationale, res extensa, and cogito sum for granted and trying to understand them you realize that for example, cogito has gotten all the attention and the sum has been ignored. (The reason the sum has been ignored is because the 'sum' can't be contained in the measurability and definability of the world.)
As you pick at the 'threads' of concepts that make up 'philosophy' you begin to see through the pre-existing conclusions, the presuppositions, and the concepts that have been forced upon you by the 'world' and the 'they'. You discover that 'living' is not a combination of characteristics called 'life' and 'philosophizing' is not a combination of characteristics called 'philosophy'.
The source of the contents of the container called 'philosophy' is you, who you really are, Be-ing. It is not the other way around. Philosophy is not some 'concept' (thing) out there for you to understand and then, when you're done, hopefully you can accumulate everything you've learned and then know the answer to “Who Am I?”.
Humans Be-ing have been trying to do that since way before Parmenides. You'd think that after several thousand years we would have put 2 & 2 together. Alan Watts said that we “haven't graduated past 'territorial monkey”. We are still defending the same territory defined several thousand years ago and making sure we keep the other monkeys out, no matter what. (I'm howling like a monkey, I just can't put on the page.)
As you de-construct your pre-existing conclusions and presuppositions you disentangle your 'self' from the measurabilty and definability (thingdom) of 'philosophy', the 'world', and the 'they'. You come to a point where you realize that the conclusions, the presuppositions, and the 'concepts' in philosophy are distractions and can no longer be used to prove the existence of your 'self' (Be-ing). When you come face-to-face with the emptiness of the concepts you reach a point in your thinking called (by Heidegger), the "possibility of the impossibility of your existence" who you've been Be-ing dies so that you can be your 'self'. You uncover/discover that the theories, the conjecture, and 'the ability to explain' your 'self' has nothing to do with Be-ing your 'self'. This is the essence of human freedom. In Be-ing you answer the question "Who am I?"
This is what is called 'transformation'.
When you make the 'leap' from the measurabilty and definability of your pre-existing conclusions and presuppositions into Be-ing you do understand it all and 'philosophizing' becomes an adventure and not a entanglement like 'philosophy'.
Friday, November 5, 2010
A Message to Michael
Michael;
I stumbled upon your review of The Genesis of Heidegger's Being and Time and I would like to chat with you about it.
I am beginning my 74th reading of Being and Time. I bought the book in 1995 and have been reading it for the past 15 years. I have also read Heidegger’s History of the Concept of Time 70 times.
I have found the problem with reading Heidegger has nothing to do with the subject matter. Heidegger is brilliant and what he is pointing at deserves to be heard. The problem is with the reader, the translator of his works, the editors that edit the translations, the professors who teach Heidegger, the English language, and even Heidegger himself adds to the problem of what he is talking about.
The problem with reading Heidegger and for that matter any philosophy is that as Heidegger says it in Being and Time, in Part II, section 5, bottom of 2nd paragraph, “To be sure, its ownmost Being is such that it has an understanding of that Being, and already maintains itself in each case as if its Being has been interpreted in some manner.” “The kind of Being which belongs to Dasein is rather such that, in understanding its own Being, it has a tendency to do so in terms of that entity towards which it comports itself proximally and in a way which is essentially constant – in terms of the 'world'. In Dasein itself, and therefore in its understanding of Being, the way the world is understood is, as we shall show, reflected back ontologically upon the way in which Dasein gets interpreted.”
In other words, we are 'thrown' to interpret who we are as a measurable, definable, thing and when we read Heidegger and all philosophy, we interpret Heidegger and all philosophy as a measurable, definable, thing to understand. This is why reading and studying philosophy provides no resolution or freedom (our birthright).
Let me show you what I mean by Heidegger himself adds to the problem. In 1995 I typed all 387 pages of Being and Time (Harper's) on my computer and as I said earlier I am reading it for the 74th time. Around the 70th reading I changed 'being' to 'Be-ing' where appropriate. Then I changed 'Dasein' to 'being-there' because I found when I read 'being' and 'Dasein' my tendency was to 'objectify' what Heidegger was saying by turning 'being' and 'Dasein' into things to understand.
That being said the following is how I have re-written what Heidegger said in Part II, section 5, bottom of 2nd paragraph, “Be-ing is such that it is an understanding of Be-ing, and already maintains itself as if Be-ing has been interpreted in some manner.” “The kind of Be-ing which belongs to Being-there (Dasein) is rather such that it has a tendency to do so in terms of that entity towards which it comports itself proximally and in a way which is essentially constant – in terms of the 'world'.
That last sentence needs to be re-stated as to not be overlooked. “In Being-there (Dasein), the way the world is understood is reflected back ontologically upon the way in which Being-there (Dasein) gets interpreted.”
In other words, you interpret who you are as if you are the world you live in. You are not the world you live along side of. Who you are is the 'My' in 'My finger', you are not the 'finger' which is measurable and definable. Just for the hell of it look up 'My' and 'I' in the dictionary. 'My' and 'I' are both defined as “used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself”. They can't be defined, only you have the power to uncover who you are.
When we read Heidegger we aren't Be-ing the conversation. Evidenced by the wording that Heidegger uses, I really don't know if he was Be-ing what he wrote or whether his writing was a compilation of historical 'hints'. He also could have been a slave to literary convention. I do know this, that whether he was Be-ing what he wrote, whether Being and Time is a compilation of historical 'hints', or whether he was a slave to 'literary convention' doesn't matter. What matters is if you are Be-ing the conversation. If you keep the 'conversation' at arm's length by 'objectifying' what Heidegger is saying, you aren't engaged in the conversation and you are missing out on the possibility of Be-ing your 'self'. You end up spending your time on the planet perpetuating the 'cover-up' and blaming others for your circumstances.
One last tidbit. When you said "That death is a primary aspect of what it means to be human. If you are aware of death as he says, then you can be aware of the meaning of life. The meaning of life comes to us because we understand that we are finite, that we are mortal and not in control." You missed what Heidegger was saying. You are speaking of death as if it is a thing, an event that happens. The moment you are born, you are already dead, you just don't know when it will happen. That's a given, a non-issue that doesn't even need to be talked about. By the way, speaking of 'death' as an event that happens to your/others physical body is all the evidence you need to prove to your 'self' that you are a victim of your 'thrownness' to interpret Heidegger, all philosophy, and everything you read as a measurable, definable, thing to understand. You are 'thrown' to interpret your 'self' as a definable, measurable, physical 'thing'.
What Heidegger is talking about when he speaks of 'running towards death', 'anticipatory resoluteness' and 'death' is the following:
As you de-construct the 'world' and disentangle your 'self' from the measurabilty and definability of it, you come to a point where you can no longer prove the existence of your 'self'. When you come face-to-face with the "possibility of the impossibility of your existence" who you've been Be-ing dies so that you can be your 'self'. You uncover/discover that anything is possible and that you are no longer a slave to proving your existence. This is the 'death' Heidegger is talking about. In Be-ing you 'anticipate resolving' 'death' so that you can be your 'self'. This is the essence of human freedom. In Be-ing you answer the question "Who am I?"
I stumbled upon your review of The Genesis of Heidegger's Being and Time and I would like to chat with you about it.
I am beginning my 74th reading of Being and Time. I bought the book in 1995 and have been reading it for the past 15 years. I have also read Heidegger’s History of the Concept of Time 70 times.
I have found the problem with reading Heidegger has nothing to do with the subject matter. Heidegger is brilliant and what he is pointing at deserves to be heard. The problem is with the reader, the translator of his works, the editors that edit the translations, the professors who teach Heidegger, the English language, and even Heidegger himself adds to the problem of what he is talking about.
The problem with reading Heidegger and for that matter any philosophy is that as Heidegger says it in Being and Time, in Part II, section 5, bottom of 2nd paragraph, “To be sure, its ownmost Being is such that it has an understanding of that Being, and already maintains itself in each case as if its Being has been interpreted in some manner.” “The kind of Being which belongs to Dasein is rather such that, in understanding its own Being, it has a tendency to do so in terms of that entity towards which it comports itself proximally and in a way which is essentially constant – in terms of the 'world'. In Dasein itself, and therefore in its understanding of Being, the way the world is understood is, as we shall show, reflected back ontologically upon the way in which Dasein gets interpreted.”
In other words, we are 'thrown' to interpret who we are as a measurable, definable, thing and when we read Heidegger and all philosophy, we interpret Heidegger and all philosophy as a measurable, definable, thing to understand. This is why reading and studying philosophy provides no resolution or freedom (our birthright).
Let me show you what I mean by Heidegger himself adds to the problem. In 1995 I typed all 387 pages of Being and Time (Harper's) on my computer and as I said earlier I am reading it for the 74th time. Around the 70th reading I changed 'being' to 'Be-ing' where appropriate. Then I changed 'Dasein' to 'being-there' because I found when I read 'being' and 'Dasein' my tendency was to 'objectify' what Heidegger was saying by turning 'being' and 'Dasein' into things to understand.
That being said the following is how I have re-written what Heidegger said in Part II, section 5, bottom of 2nd paragraph, “Be-ing is such that it is an understanding of Be-ing, and already maintains itself as if Be-ing has been interpreted in some manner.” “The kind of Be-ing which belongs to Being-there (Dasein) is rather such that it has a tendency to do so in terms of that entity towards which it comports itself proximally and in a way which is essentially constant – in terms of the 'world'.
That last sentence needs to be re-stated as to not be overlooked. “In Being-there (Dasein), the way the world is understood is reflected back ontologically upon the way in which Being-there (Dasein) gets interpreted.”
In other words, you interpret who you are as if you are the world you live in. You are not the world you live along side of. Who you are is the 'My' in 'My finger', you are not the 'finger' which is measurable and definable. Just for the hell of it look up 'My' and 'I' in the dictionary. 'My' and 'I' are both defined as “used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself”. They can't be defined, only you have the power to uncover who you are.
When we read Heidegger we aren't Be-ing the conversation. Evidenced by the wording that Heidegger uses, I really don't know if he was Be-ing what he wrote or whether his writing was a compilation of historical 'hints'. He also could have been a slave to literary convention. I do know this, that whether he was Be-ing what he wrote, whether Being and Time is a compilation of historical 'hints', or whether he was a slave to 'literary convention' doesn't matter. What matters is if you are Be-ing the conversation. If you keep the 'conversation' at arm's length by 'objectifying' what Heidegger is saying, you aren't engaged in the conversation and you are missing out on the possibility of Be-ing your 'self'. You end up spending your time on the planet perpetuating the 'cover-up' and blaming others for your circumstances.
One last tidbit. When you said "That death is a primary aspect of what it means to be human. If you are aware of death as he says, then you can be aware of the meaning of life. The meaning of life comes to us because we understand that we are finite, that we are mortal and not in control." You missed what Heidegger was saying. You are speaking of death as if it is a thing, an event that happens. The moment you are born, you are already dead, you just don't know when it will happen. That's a given, a non-issue that doesn't even need to be talked about. By the way, speaking of 'death' as an event that happens to your/others physical body is all the evidence you need to prove to your 'self' that you are a victim of your 'thrownness' to interpret Heidegger, all philosophy, and everything you read as a measurable, definable, thing to understand. You are 'thrown' to interpret your 'self' as a definable, measurable, physical 'thing'.
What Heidegger is talking about when he speaks of 'running towards death', 'anticipatory resoluteness' and 'death' is the following:
As you de-construct the 'world' and disentangle your 'self' from the measurabilty and definability of it, you come to a point where you can no longer prove the existence of your 'self'. When you come face-to-face with the "possibility of the impossibility of your existence" who you've been Be-ing dies so that you can be your 'self'. You uncover/discover that anything is possible and that you are no longer a slave to proving your existence. This is the 'death' Heidegger is talking about. In Be-ing you 'anticipate resolving' 'death' so that you can be your 'self'. This is the essence of human freedom. In Be-ing you answer the question "Who am I?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
