Heidegger

michaelP:
> >But, Joe, who asked as to some “immaterial component of the human
> >individual”? … If you are asking this other question as to the
> >existence of some immaterial component of a human individual: for me
> >that is not the or even a question of be-ing.
>
> >… I fondly imagine I am trying to employ the term ‘be-ing’ in a
> >Heideggerian manner (and thus, to some extent, in a manner not utterly
> >unrecognisable by the entire western philosophical tradition)

Joe:
> I think you may be divorcing yourself from and isolating Heidegger from
> large portions of the entire western philosophical tradition by claiming
> that asking whether there is an immaterial component of the human
> individual is not at least part of the question of Being.

Divorced and isolating maybe, but your question “is there be-ing?” qua “is
there is an immaterial component of the human individual?” is about the
material/non-material structure of a particular being (however interesting
and peculiar) and is thereby not a question concerning be-ing as such
(although questioning human beings qua dasein {asking as to the be-ing of
human beings, the site of access to be-ing…} could provide a way in {see
‘Being & Time’}). Your question sounds rather more scientific than
philosophical.

> not everyone believes in a deity; but, of those who do, how many refer
> to a deity as a Supreme Existent rather than a Supreme Being?

All deities are beings (not be-ing). Now, if one asked as to the godding of
the gods… {this questioning is not a matter of belief or disbelief}

> not everyone accepts that there is an immaterial component of the human
> individual; but, of those who do, how many refer to such things as
> existents rather than beings? even by your own terms, if there are such
> things they’d have to be beings; for, any that is is a being.

I have no idea or interest in such a quantity — ask Jud (he seems to like
polls and surveys to decide such matters). What would such a poll decide?
Now, if one asked instead as to the nature of the polling of polls, one
might begin to ask as to the be-ing of polling rather than the polling of
be-ing (exist-ing, etc).

The words don’t matter at all with be-ing (”be-ing” is barely a word at all
since it be-comes a being the minute it is articulated; thus, be-ing is
covered by the word “be-ing”, which is why Heidegger at one time felt
compelled to cross it out; I attempt to show that “be-ing” is not the name
of any thing by emphasisiing its verbal/processing meaning rather than the
nominal through the limited use of the hyphen; but ‘really’ it ought to
erase its self even as it is being articulated/sounded/written).

regards

michaelP

Posted on Tuesday, January 29th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback