Richard and Susanna,

Notice how easy it is for us to utilize the word “being”
and to suggest exotic philosophies that exploit the
expression without having a real sense of what the
expression means or signifies. 

For Heidegger, the question of being is not exactly a
question; it is more accurately a problematic. He observes
that being cognates (e.g. is, am, are) permeate human
linguistic expression, yet we hardly know exactly what we
are signifying by these expressions. In one sense,
Heidegger is asking a straightforward question: What is the
meaning of being? But Heidegger is not only concerned with
our tendency to employ the expression “being” without a
grasp of its meaning; he is also alarmed at our failure to
grasp the range and dynamics of the question itself. We
have been so taken over by a post-enlightenment language
and ontology (that historically begins much earlier), that
the question itself has no grip on us; it no longer
perplexes us. 

In Being and Time, he constructs what he believes to be the
principal conceptual, substantive and methodological
problems involved in any attempt to articulate the meaning
and dynamics of being. This is what he means by reawakening
an understanding for the meaning of the QUESTION. The
problematic of being is revealed through a phenomenological
analysis of Dasein.  He wants to gain access to the problem
through Dasein. He wants to establish the priority of
ontology to any metaphysics --then, and only then, might we
approach the meaning of being, or perhaps even find
formulations of questions about its meaning incoherent. 
Heidegger insists that "is" is prior to "what." He lights
up the Dasein analytic with rhemetic expressions that form
the basic communicative nucleus of his analysis.  These are
the expressions that many readers find objectionable. But
they are his way of re-awakening us to the meaning and
dynamics of the question of being --they are not
definitions of being.  

It’s a very subtle and difficult project. Perhaps it is too
ambitious. But it aims at building a philosophy of
philosophy -- the foundation of philosophies of art, for
example, which we tend to rush into before grasping
fundamental ontology: the ground for all philosophy. B/T is
hard core phenomenology that might give us the tools to
assess philosophies of art and to construct our own
philosophies. But the QUESTION of being has priority for
Heidegger and cannot be brushed over when we build second
order philosophies –otherwise, on Heidegger's view, we are
building castles in the air.


--- Susanna Chandler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I have been finding Richard's insights very compelling.
> His points that
> foundations in origins is inadequate for reasons of
> causation hold up.
> Though I would throw in the Burkian notion of organic
> evolution of being and
> meaning. This is precisely what I I believe H bemoaned as
> lost and
> fragmented beyond repair in the world. A garden of Eden
> as it were. The
> resuscitation of authentic being did and does necessitate
> a new language,
> the creation of new being.
> 
> It is also highly valid to hold up one's own experiences
> as a measure of
> what this entails and means. No language can ever
> substitute the
> transfiguration of being as realized.
> 
> Which brings me to several thoughts involved another
> language which creates
> an ontological foundation for metaphysical being: music.
> And here I would
> suggest a more formal creation of music integrated with
> more fully realized
> states of being which incorporate visual and conceptual
> language. Before I
> invite too many caveats, let's accept that all music is
> in some sense a
> system or structure of being in action. Even in its most
> basic and
> unconscious forms. But we are dealing with conscious
> systems which lead to
> the creation of a new hermeneutics.
> 
> Monteverdi devoted himself to creating an interpretive
> system for opera. He
> believed he could create a meta language which
> established relationships
> between tonal structures, emotions, and gesture.
> Ultimately he could not
> resolve the visual, emotional, and conceptual. Yet one
> only needs to listen
> to Orpheus, or other works to experience the state of
> being he wishes to
> share within a language of art. It is also difficult to
> escape what was
> later described by Bach and Schopenhauer as the veil.
> Veil of tears, Veil of
> Maya. And as later described by Stephen Crane, "caught in
> the stubble of the
> earth, like an unfolding veil."
> 
> Avoiding excessive musicology, why not skip to the
> transfiguration of this
> division between metaphysical being and its manifestation
> in life on earth.
> Beethoven of course. Ode to Spring. The assumption of
> newly created life
> within the collective expression of genius. All that. But
> there is a great
> deal more behind this, and beyond. Beethoven too created
> a new language,
> connected to the past and experience, but something never
> before realized.
> He achieved this in an ontological sense. He subjectively
> expressed the
> vigor and passion of youth, without the reflection of
> deeper experience. He
> was a virtuoso in his beginnings as a great composer
> [whether or not you
> like his work, just as I may not *like* H]. He then goes
> on to create a
> system of conventions based on these original
> inspirations of being. He
> explores being as far as he is able, formally and
> expressively. In his later
> work, where he achieves transfiguration, both convention
> and fullest
> expression unite, and he is transformed. His music is
> transformed, because
> it can be experienced by others, together, with him,
> beyond self, aware, and
> most definitely as a living beingness. My words are quite
> clunky here. I
> attribute anything resembling insight to Theodore Adorno.
> Most of you will
> know the reference, which is Thomas Mann's depiction of
> Theodore Adorno's
> musical lecture in Santa Monica in Dr. Faustus. Chapter
> XIII I think. The
> one of the old professor with a stutter.
> 
> Then there is Schoenberg, Miles Davis, maybe even the
> Beatles. Who's to say,
> and shouldn't we allow for all relativity which supports,
> oh I don't know .
> . . unconsciousness mediated by consciousness. Being,
> when there is no
> thought of being, and it is sublime to be so.
> 
> I also only use music as another medium. One which oftens
> shapes the
> experiential and narrative line of a film as much as the
> visual.
> 
> My simplistic elaboration is to express that art can do
> what no philosophy
> is ultimately equipped to do. Great artists are
> philosophers. Does it work
> both ways? Is it even safe for this to be possible? Can
> reason, matter, and
> energy add up to consciousness and Being?
> 
> Of course not. Which changes nothing. Zen, epiphany,
> flow, love, cosmology,
> reason to great purpose, are all pathways. And only that.
> Why else be alive,
> if we are already in a perfect state?
> 
> That this can never be an excuse for evil and intentional
> destruction would
> be the one absolute I would ever make as a mere mortal.
> 
> Susanna
> 
> p.s. I honestly don't want to go back and edit, so please
> excuse any faux
> pas.
> 
> 
> > H attempts to circumvent numerous traditional  problems
> by introducing a
> > fresh mind set delivered by a transfiguration of
> accepted language designed
> > to impress upon us the power of his novelty in a
> coherent manner. By
> > "necessarily" I meant that ordinarily language was
> inadequate for his
> > purposes. After all, language forms are developed daily
> to deal with new
> > circumstances. In a W'n sense, he is creating a new
> form of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > I agree that seeking origins (from what, where) is
> inadequate because among
> > other grounds, it fails to relate to causation (origin
> is not cause) and
> > thus lacks sufficient explanatory power. Similarly
> explaining phenomenon in
> > terms of things because, aside from obvious intuition,
> there is no
> > sufficient, adequate ground for establishing the
> relationship between
> > premises (facts, axioms), derivational rules and the
> resulting conclusion
> > sets (consider Tarski). "What things are" presupposes a
> set of valuations.
> > Here I agree with H - it can't be done except by means
> of relations the
> > validity of which will always be open to valuations.
> >
> > I submit that "what does being mean" is unavoidable
> from any perspective,
> > east, west... but I disagree that H's language  becomes
> "very transparent"
> > and
> > in particular  that his terms become, based on the
> foregoing grounds,
> > "precise, informative, surgical". I will return to this
> point.
> >
> > James' provocative submissions deserve evaluation. I
> disagree along with
> > Nietzsche that Eastern thought has a "more
> sophisticated and coherent
> > tradition" and that the problem of being addressed by
> "endless convoluted
> > speculation" is somehow circumvented by simply and
> magically determining
> > that 'something either is or isn't". I have danced with
> the "wild" ones in
> > meditation and have practiced the ultimate" meditation
> in motion" (martial
> > arts) for many years and have yet to experience
> "either/or". Quite simply,
> > we are not designed to work that way. We do not begin
> and end with ourselves
> > because
> > even if there were a self, it would be an
> interpretation. I became convinced
> > upon accepting the Humean challenge, namely finding the
> self. Try it and see
> > whether you find a "self" or innumerable states of
> consciousness, the veil
> > of Maya. It's no wonder many Easterns view the self is
> an illusion. In any
> > event, what state of consciousness qualifies as an
> "is"?. Maybe Om is just
> > as
> > many claim, a residual noise based on our physiology.
> And when/how exactly
> > do you know that "any" state is "yourself". I submit
> that you don't and that
> > the answer is blowin in the wind.
> >
> > The notion of the equivalence of "logical construction"
> and the K'n
> > thing-in-itself sounds like a misreading and makes no
> sense. How does one
> > tie these two concepts together in any consistent
> acceptable way. And no one
> > has submitted  the impossible notion that language "is
> the thing itself"
> > .
> > As for  mind games, N postulates that we are comprised
> of sub-selves
> > (units of power)  that compete with one another to gain
> access to
> > consciousness (echoes of Leibniz' monad, Schopenhauer's
> and Freud's
> > unconscious). Here he foresaw the advances in
> psych/physiology. Awareness is
> > a reduction like mp3. What comes to consciousness is a
> compressed version
> > after elimination. (interesting lit relating to all 11
> senses).
> >
> > Where I differ from the H is the emphasis on the power
> of and the obligation
> > imposed on the "self". A mistake that Sartre corrected
> prior to his death.
> > Perhaps
> > god manifests himself in the unending mysterious
> process (Whitehead).
> >
> > To return briefly, my original debatable psychoanalytic
> guess (insight) was
> > that the impetus for H's project was his incredulous
> confrontation with the
> > mysterious "thing". I don't mean to suggest anything
> like Adler's
> > inferiority compensation but rather a Nietzschean
> confrontation with life
> > from
> > a position of strength.
> >
> > Time to go outfor dinner. I tend to go stream so
> forgive any rambling which
> > I don't have
> > time to correct. I intended to include Goedel, Derrida,
> Popper but that's
> > another venture.
> >
> > Incidentally I read Iain Thomson's "Can I Die? Derrida
> on Heidegger on
> > Death" yesterday and recommend it highly.
> >
> > As an aside, I upgraded my German language skills thru
> the Goethe Institute
> > and am rereading Nietzsche in the original. I am
> surprised to confront a
> > more light-footed, funny fellow.
> >
> > Regards, Richard


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com