From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" R.B.M.deBakker@uva.nl
To: heidegger@lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 Subject: RE:
BT- interesting notes
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.
Friday, April 16, 2004
Subject: RE: BT- interesting notes
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"?
Then there would be a 'war', an inner
dividedness
in Dasein, which enables different
modalities.
We would, nevertheless, always, each
time,
be 'mine'. Not only in Eigentlichkeit,
where
'my' totality resists representation,
also
in Uneigentlichkeit 'one' is jemeinig.
As
one is in the indifference towards
both Eigen-
and Uneigentlichkeit, as he once says.
I'll
try look it up.
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'.
Sure. Like in the case of Tolstoy's
Death
of Ivan Ilyich, a story entirely in
inauthenticity,
he notes BT, par. 51: '"one dies"
(or one survives)
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?
As i see it, the whole episode is in
inauthenticity,
which is by no means 'less' than authenticity.
SuZ, par. 9, p. 43: "The inauthenticity
of Dasein does not mean "less"
being, or a lower grade of being. Inauthenticity
is rather able to determine Dasein
according
to its fullest tangibility in its busyness,
excitedness, curiousness, ability to
enjoy."
I don't think Heidegger claims to fathom
all this via authenticity.
regards rene
But I may have missed the tenor of
ya'll's
dialogue. I am not paying attention
to the
'political' letters.
|