Bakker: I still had this one, some things may be useful as to the confusion on (in)authenticity. Eigentlichkeit and Uneigentlichkeit, as is written in BT, par. 9, are Seinsmodi, modes of (Dasein's) being. As such, they are grounded in the Jemeinigkeit of Dasein.

GCM: So, if I understand it, authenticity and inauthenticity are both expressions of "mineness" which would then explain the unease within inauthenticity in certain situations because it begins to realize there is something else that grounds it other than the "They" which, though it can never forego or reject itself, realizes there is another ground other than the tradition (language) of "Theyness" which is the Personal body, altogether different from the observed body just like everyone else's, which this "mineness" begins to lay particular claim to, AND ALSO, and possibly even more so, lays in turn claim to "mineness"?

Bakker: Meanwhile i found "the being .... that each time i am myself."

Par. 45: "Das Seiende, dergestalt seiend, bin je ich selbst."

As said, one would expect: bin ich je selbst.

Now compare par. 9 on the theme of the analytics of Dasein, beginning:

"Das Seiende, dessen Analyse zur Aufgabe steht, sind wir je selbst"

"The being, which is to be analyzed, are we always ourselves."

As one would expect. But "we" is provided with a later note: je 'ich'. (each time 'I') -

GCM: Thank you for this. If I understand this right, it seems to say the 'I' is NOT continuous but is each time 'I' literally and 'authentically' while maintained in the pseudo-continuity of the everyday 'I' of "Theyness" or tradition. It would mean the "surprize" of realizing where and who I am as defined by my literally real, non-abstracted, involved situation (perceptual relations in all senses) where 'I' am not the center as 'I' am made by my circumstances. Rather 'I' am the context that relates the circumstances

as in:-- I am in a foxhole. My comrade has a bullet in his brain. There are, it seems, a 100,000 North Vietnamese coming up the hillside. And the expression "I am in deep shit" comes to mind. That would be a very specific 'I'.

Bakker: (if an interpretation of Heidegger is right ('cuts wood' we say) one will find it back - essential things everywhere)

GCM: I do not understand, "one will find it back - essential things everywhere". Please explain.

Bakker: just before (2): The being*, that Dasein (i, you, he) has to be, is not, as in the case of a table or a house, its 'what'; but its essence, if this word is usable at all here, is its eksistence, which is Being*, and not a quality. - answer to Jud

*a note to 'Being': das Seyn 'des' Da, 'des': genitivus objectivus.

the Beyng 'of the' Da, 'of the': gen. obj.

GCM: In inauthenticity or common usage, the "They-self", Dasein (i, you, he) is always a "what" in social circumstances, in language itself, as in "Greetings. Your government requires . . ." or "I kill you Yankee dogshit." In everyday life with other 'people' I am no different from "a table or a house". Dasein always regards other Daseins as "things", "natural reserves", "stockpiles", "targets", "gun fodder". Supposedly, at rare moments, one regards others, other 'Daseins', as well as "Jemeinigkeit", as some 'thing' different, but I distrust this. It is a concept "always already" compromised. AND it is in a Moment of 'authenticity' that one realizes 'I' too am merely part of the "stockpile" of the

meaningless abstraction "humanity" or "Americans" or "workforce", that that is how 'I' am regarded by others factically, that that is how 'I' am treated factically, and that that is what 'I' am -- in fact. Therefore 'I' am of absolutely no importance to myself because 'I' like everyone else has their self-esteem based on the valuation of others, the 'They', and one day 'I' realize 'I' am just a lump of material, a possible game-piece in a game 'I' have no control over. And since this is what all of my self-esteem is based on, I am worthless and there is no value to me because 'I' am nothing in their eyes, that is, I can be replaced, I am expendable, and therefore, in honesty, or if you prefer 'authenticity', necessarily nothing in my own because all values come from the 'They'. The very CONCEPT of value comes from the 'They'. My observed body to the 'They' is physiologically analyzed and tested for mechanical ability, and if I fail I might as well go on to the dissection room and be of some small use. No one knows anything about my personal body including most of the time myself. So . . . in these terms, it is always refreshing to re-read the conversation between Clarice Starling and Doctor Hannibal Lecter:

Clarice: "I think you can provide some insight and advance this study."

Lecter: "And what possible reason could I have to do that?"

Clarice: "Curiosity."

Lecter: About what?"

Clarice: About why you're here. About what happened to you."

Lecter: "Nothing happened to me, Officer Starling. I happened. You can't reduce me to a set of influences. You have given up good and evil for behaviorism, Officer Starling. You've got everybody in moral dignity pants-nothing is ever anybody's fault. Look at me, Officer Starling. Can you say I am evil? Am I evil, Officer Starling?"

The rest of the conversation is philosophically fascinating also, but here, there are actually a number of very relevant but different things going on. To start at the center and work out, Hannibal Lecter, the murderer and cannibal, is calling upon Clarice Starling, the self-made FBI 'agent', to be moral. In all the things I have read about this passage, no one notes in the slightest this tremendous aporia. Clarice, the good 'guy', judges things by a mechanical criteria that is utterly meaningless because it derives itself of all value. Hannibal the cannibal calls, in much the same way as conscience "calls" in Heidegger, for her to make the vocal statement he is evil, he even questions her ABILITY to say it. That is one reason why it is like Heidegger's "call" - "Do you have the ability to act", NOT "You should perform the right action." And, again, Hannibal does NOT say himself he is evil. In fact, he would never do so. You are "called" to make judgments, but what these judgments are . . . . are elsewhere. And to finish, "Nothing happened to me." Perfect Heidegger. Nothing has happened to him. He is made by nothing. Nothing nothings. But lux fiat! "I happened." "I am that I am." Doctor Hannibal Lecter has cut himself off from the 'They-self' to a degree Heidegger could never do and would never want to do. What philosopher might understand what "I happened" really means?

But I may have missed the tenor of ya'll's dialogue. I am not paying attention to the 'political' letters.