Dear Rene,
That is the message I am getting too
from
Heidegger, though why it is Hemming,
the
Catholic priest, that is making it
so clear
to me is a real puzzle. He may be wanting
to pull the rabbit of faith out of
a nihilistic
hat, but I have only got a third of
the way
into the book. It seems to resolve
down to.
also, how seriously 'one' is to take
the
'self' when the 'self' is on the one
hand
'nothing' yet on the other hand, to
be 'authentic',
you are suppose to come back to the
'real'
self which has just been utterly destroyed.
The 'self' seems to be the last refuge
of
the 'soul', like "Patriotism is
the
last refuge of a scoundrel" (Randolf
Bourne, who also said "War is
the health
of the state," another outmoded
concept).
What are your thoughts about the 'reality'
of the 'self'?
R.B.M.deBakker: Not many, Gary, and the ones I have,
are not even available.
R.B.M.deBakker: What are *my* thoughts about *the* self.
I'm merely in the way of this self, so it
seems.
R.B.M.deBakker: As is the way of thinking itself, so
one better not fight it.
R.B.M.deBakker: One step further, and another self, a neighbour,
is needed to satisfy myself with my self.
R.B.M.deBakker; So one better remains without a self, on
the way to it, on the brink of it (angibasia),
perhaps.
R.B.M.deBakker: What mr. Hemming did to you, a student
did to me. Maybe they are "The friend
of Dasein" (BT), speaking unexpectedly.
R.B.M.deBakker: Heidegger writes in BT: The being,
which is Dasein's concern while being, "...
bin je ich selbst."
The student said: one would expect: "...bin
ich je selbst"
R.B.M.deBakker: I don't know whether this can be translated,
but in the latter variant, first come I and
then its time. (je: each time, on occasion)
But in Heidegger's version the 'je' comes
first, and only then the I.
R.B.M.deBakker: Then there would be first time (timing),
and only then an I.
Like in: Je-meinigkeit (or: je-weilig)
R.B.M.deBakker: - So: we would be, *before* we are
an I?
Dear Rene,
You truly know how to engage a person! The
first time I read this I understood little
but thought, "I think there is something
here -- even if it is not." Of course,
I think that is exactly the problem with
Heidegger, the circularity that is a spiral
rather than a tautological circle that makes
itself ridiculous. When one has "pinned
him down," one really knows one has
simply delivered a still-birth of thought
and has been a very bad midwife.
Of course, you are pretty slipery yourself
and just as deliberate. But genuine kindness
and consideration for others shows through
the "you" that is not there to
give it. You say your thoughts are not available
and then proceed not to give them, a
substantial lack, a productive negativity,
a hole filled with a freedom loving nothingness.
I understand "the way of the self".
That is an excellent way to describe how
Hume dealt with it, but it seems just about
everyone on this list thinks Hume is a simple
minded buffoon. However, the buffoon's job
was to advise the king if the king was smart
enough to listen. Heidegger wanted to advise
kings but no one was interested. But the
American founding fathers read Hume with
deep interest. Enough of that . . . for now.
"As is the way of thinking itself,
so one better not fight it." Absolutely
beautiful. I am truly humbled (think: acrostic-like).
" . . . another self, a neighbour, is
needed to satisfy myself with my self."
You are fortunate with your neighbors. I
live around babboons, viscious, nasty animals,
except calling them animals gives them far
too much credit. "So one better remains
without a self, on the way to it, on the
brink of it (angibasia), perhaps." Perfect
description. But "angibasia"--
I assume it is Greek but cannot find it is
any lexicon. Can you tell me more? And "...
bin je ich selbst.", where does this
exactly come from in BEING AND TIME?
"Then there would be first time (timing),
and only then an I." Again, a brilliant,
unavailable thought. But, then, what could
such time 'be' if it is first without an
"I"? But that statement in reality
cannot be about reality but is simply about
the "how" of expression in language
which always assumes a subject and a predicate
whereas your statement is much more like
what Heidegger valued as the unique ambility
of poetry to 'express' the inexpressible.
"So: we would be, *before* we are an
I?" A question as an answer, a naturally
unavailable thought. This is what Hemming
seems to be getting at, something I have
always known to be in Heidegger, best expressed
in volume 2 of NIETZSCHE, chapter 25, "The
Essence of a Fundamental Metaphysical Position",
but coming from a Catholic priest?
Now, faith is very important. Everyone has
to have faith. You have faith that you can
leave your house, get in the car, and drive
to work. This is the "normal state of
affairs", custom", "common
sense", "tradition". If you
really did not -- 'assume' -- this was a
trustworthy path of action you could not
function -- at all. But you cannot KNOW you
are going to get to work. You have faith.
This is trivial, but like most trivialities
based on very important things. If human
being really is fundamentally a question
of such a sort it cannot possibly have an
answer, then death ceases to be a threat
or dreadful on any level or in any situation
or relating to any body else. "If God
does not exist, then everything is permitted."
But, then, desire becomes absurd and arbitrary
. . . and trivial. You have posited values
none the less. You do not want pain. You
do not want your wife and children to die.
But, really, why not if . . . I hate then
term "significant others" because
there can be no "sign', no "significance"
in the sense of understanding. "Significant"
here merely means "important" without
explaining really WHY it is important. What
is the meaning, here, of "Importance"?
IS there any meaning to the word whatsoever
other than posited feelings without explanation?
If the superiority of the Aryan race a posited,
inexplicable value in a world of arbitrary
and groundless values, why not act upon that?
But A) that makes one a robot, and B) one
likes to hurt people. The choice of any value,
even arbitrarily, even just because it is
just . . . "there" . . . within
the 'self' that does not exist STILL has
consequences and ramifications even if now
we might view then as neutral observers watching
natural phenomena, except . . . why do we
even observe? Why do we do anything . . .
other than as . . . habit.
Not everyone appreciates the dawning sunlight
but I think you do. But there are some 'souls',
or should I say 'non-selves', that are black
as figurative Hell which, of course, I cannot
even possibly imagine and therefore reduce
my own statement to nonsense: "Reductio
ad absurdum" as an ontological category.
'sincerely'
Gary C. Moore
|
Athenaeum Reading Room
