Heidegger

Allen wants:

> I’m wanting to better understand what Heidegger means when he says
> that being alone is a deficient form of being with.

Hi Allen, is the reference to being alone (being a lone(r)?) one like the
state of say being on one’s own in a room? Or when we say “I’m all alone in
the world” or in the oft quoted ad “you’re never alone with a Strand” {a
brand of fag} or in Sinatra’s confession of “my way”, etc. Crusoe took the
whole of his society with him in his (a)lonely sojourn on the island…

Perhaps Heidegger is trying to refer to (say [note Anthony]) an other
concept of being alone (the ‘mine’?) in speaking of these possibly
“deficient” modes of aloneness. Along the lines of: one can only be with
(others, the Other) if one is alone (one’s ownmost, myhood); and one can
only be (’deficiently’) alone if one is always already (in-’deficiently’,
fecundly, fundamentally) alone…

Perhaps the ‘deficiency’ means something more like a dependency (on the
‘in-deficient’) than a lessening (of the ‘in-deficient’)…

Perhaps it is mis-taken to take these modes (’deficient’ and in-deficient’)
as separate, on different sides to a divide; rather they might be conceived
as being always together, entwined, embraced…

>The other place
> where he uses such an expression (there might be others still) is
> when he says that assertion is a deficient form of interpretation.
> It seems obvious that there he means “a lesser form,” that is,
> hermeneutically less adequate.

…. and then Heidegger’s assertion that “assertion is a deficient form of
interpretation” can be interpreted as not saying (although speaking)
assertion is a lesser form of interpretation…

>
> Every factical enactment of a hermeneutical possibility may be more
> or less authentic. It seems that in order to be so, every authentic
> step in understanding must have its pseudos: It looks like the path,
> but it isn’t. I know many examples of this, most of them for some
> reason are in the realm of religion.
>
> Well, the confusing conclusion I come to here is that being alone and
> being with are each pseudos of the other.

…. then the psudos of each other could mean the entwining of the modes that
are never found apart (although they are different: just as the keys of C
major and A minor use the same notes but they sound differently; just as in
(Plato’s) Parmenides true speech and false speech are not opposed, rather
false speech is an other form of true speech that does not understand its
dependence on be-ing {an other form of true speech}, etc…)…

[sorry, Allen, the musical example is naff, but I cannot be bothered to rub
it out…]

regards

michaelP

>
> Regards,
>
> Allen

Posted on Saturday, June 10th, 2006 at 5:15 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback