I'm busy during the day so I'm missing out on the interactions but I
I appreciate your indulgence. It's amazing how much I've forgotten. And your
final points, with which I largely agree, in particular the untamable mind
that constructs "castles" remind me of past outlooks. Once I
wrote a 30 page analysis of SZ (with a focus on self-deception) at grad
level with what I presume was within the then correct/accepted language
norms. Now I can barely remember the convoluted logical manipulations and my
then-I-thought major contributions (trite in retrospect) to H'n
interpretation. If I venture into SZ again it will be in the original where
I'm told H is much easier to comprehend because his strange language
constructions delineating new life forms are easy to grasp. I will return
with my thoughts.
I don't have much time now but as a quick aside, the phrasing of "loaded
concepts like consciousness must come later, if at all - and must first be
stripped of any metaphysical presumptions-particularly the hidden ones-if
they are to be admitted" reminds me of a funny (unintentional) paper I once
wrote wherein I speculated on the psychoanalytic origins of H's phil.
Something along the lines of arguing that the sequential delay (sexual
tension), the demands necessitating the "stripping" of the loaded (feminine)
ego and the required "exposure of the hidden" in order to be admitted to
evaluation to the male gaze to be "accepted" all resonated with some
Freudian projected sexual/ repressive/aggressive note and accentuated H's
denial of something I hadn't been able to grasp. A defensive orientation
that I couldn't see in N for instance and that H's attempt to
circumvent/avoid/restrict this presentation "of" constituted a complicated
case of denial/repression. Further I submitted the totally unjustified silly
notion that the origin or cause of his repressed fear, which at the time
seemed pervasive to me in SZ resulted from H witnessing the primal scene.
There's no end to strangeness in phil - think I got an A. It was great to be
young and foolish. My grad years were the best times of my life. The Sinatra
quote prompted me to visit the Philosophical Humor site. Hilarious.
Regards, Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Lomax" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: being or not-being
> >Simple phenomenolgy is exactly what Heidegger is doing in
> >an attempt to get at what you call consciousness, but he
> >would not, and does not, like to use the term consciousness
> >--its hard to tell what we mean by it. Simple
> >phenomenology is Heidegger's analytic method, and it does
> >come first. >>
>
> I may not always refer to what H actually said because - quite frankly -
> I've not read very much. My observations were more a response to the
> dialogue here. If he is indeed
>
>
> >> trying to establish, at bottom, what expressions like
> >consciousness (being) amount to. >>
>
> then I may be encouraged to investigate further. Because if he is
>
>
> <<<just asking in a simple,
> >everyday, almost pre-philosophical way, what does it mean
> >for me and other entities to exist? Its really almost a
> >boyish question. >>>
>
> then his position seems to be similar to mine. I believe that simple
> questions are often more sophisticated than the complex ones that
generally
> attract people and are regarded as 'academically valuable'. For example:
> now, everything is constantly moving. Physics tells us this in its own
> domain, and meditation traditions and personal experience tells us the
same
> with regard to the mind - meditation doesn't 'stop' thought, that is
> impossible; it moves like the blood circulation, even when we sleep. So,
if
> everything is movement, what is stillness? How does the mind, which is
> movement, intersect with it? In fact can it 'see' it if not only is there
> stillness and movement but gradations of both which require you to be
> attuned to whatever frequency you are investigating. If you're not, then
> you won't recognise or understand it, and whatever reports you are
> presented with, you will conclude they are no more than an interesting
idea
> which you are in a position to evaluate because intellect rules supreme.
In
> which you are mistaken. Etc.
>
> I can quite easily engage with more conventional and 'academic' forms of
> discourse, but when it comes to questions about 'being' etc. my view is
> that the fundamental and supposedly naive questions are actually the most
> important and have never been properly addressed. Not, at least, in the
> Western tradition. As i said before, I might have said to H as he was
> dying "Now then H (may I call you H?), what is the relationship between
> your years of philosophy and this immediate predicament you are currently
> experiencing which is indeed a matter of 'being' and 'nothingness'. Do you
> agree that all your ideas did not prepare you for or anticipate WHAT IS
> HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, and that they were, therefore, somewhat lacking?"
Etc.
>
> Call me naive if you wish (but maybe not post it here ;-) ) - but as far
as
> I'm concerned, if you consider phenomenologically ultimate questions, then
> you can't take any prisoners. It's time to think about fundamental
> existential issues. Otherwise, you engage in a pursuit that is
> fundamentally 'armchair philosophy' or as you put it, 'castles in the
sky'.
>
> (And I think he would ask the same thing
> >of consciousness: what does it mean for me to be
> >conscious?) But he is astounded by 2000 years of philosophy
> >that seems to think it has answered the question, when in
> >fact, it has simply forgotten all about it.
>
>
> Me too. Except it doesn't so much astound me as make me think hmm, so what
> was the point of all that work? It doesn't *surprise* me, because as far
as
> I'm concerned it is the *nature* of the mind to construct castles in the
> air - sometimes, at least.
>
>
> <<He wants to
> >remake philosophy as phenomenology.>>
>
> Well that's sensible.
>
|