CPI vs OD
November 8th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: No related posts
—–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
Van: heidegger-bounces at an-archos.com
[mailto:heidegger-bounces@an-archos.com]Namens Joseph Polanik
Verzonden: donderdag 8 november 2007 13:25
Aan: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
Onderwerp: Re: CPI vs OD
Jan Straathof wrote:
> Hi Joe, you wrote:
>
>>I know that I am; but, not what I am.
>
> You have used this ‘maxim’ a couple of times now in your posts,
> but i must confess i don’t really understand what you mean by it.
> Of what i know, or can guess from your presence here on the list,
> at least the following can be said about what/who you are:
>
> - you are Joe (Joseph Polanik)
> - you are a male person
> - you are of a certain age
> - you are born in country X, city Y
> - you are a person whose ancestors came from Poland
> - you are part of a certain cultural tradition
> - you are educated at school X, Y, Z
> - you are working at company X
> - you are member of political party Y
> - you are (f.i.) a good cook
> - you are (f.i.) a lousy baseball player
> - you are partner of ….
> - you are a fan of ….
> - you are delighted by …
> - you are fearful of ….
> - you are angried by …..
> - you are interested in philosophy
> - you are etc. etc. etc.
>
> I believe that all these and many more characteristics make what you
> are now, i.e. what it is that make you the unique person “Joe”. And
> your personal ‘whatness’ is not finished, as long as you live you will
> keep questioning and searching for new answers. Heidegger once said:
> “Questioning means: being able to wait, even a whole life long”.
>
> What am i missing ?
you are missing the difference between ‘what am I?’ and ‘who am I?’.
these questions are not interchangeable. as I see it, ‘who am I?’ asks
about my individuality or uniqueness. you’ve listed some inferences
you’ve made as to *who* I am based on the content of my posts.
in contrast, ‘what am I?’, at least as I use it, is a first person way
of asking ‘what is the structure of a human individual?’. it asks about
universality rather than individuality.
the statement (or ‘maxim’) that I’ve named the CPI, “I know that I am;
but, not what I am”, describes the starting point for someone who asks
‘what am I?’ in search of a universal answer.
in the current context of the discussion thus far concerning the OD, I
would say that the awareness expressed by the CPI is prior to the OD.
in the beginning, all I know is that I am self-aware. because nothing
unreal is self-aware, I conclude that I am a reality of some sort. this
doesn’t tell me much. it only identifies the root predicate that I use.
I still have no idea what sort of reality I am; but, pursuing this
question seems to generate the network of concepts said to be between
subject and object (or between ‘that I am’ and ‘what I am’).
Joe,
I guess your approach belongs to the part of BT devoted to everydayness,
more specifically the way one understands one-self and one’s world proximally
and mostly. Also the usage of the notions ‘I’ and ‘reality’ is explained there.
Further on in BT is then shown the collapse of these notions when one is ready
to confront the question of being. As long as the ‘I’ puts itself prior to
ontological questions (od), there can be no ontological questioning at all,
just mere everydayness, however subtle. In this context it is also Descartes
who is discussed, and to whom all ego-centered questioning goes back to.
In short: we in our age are held histage by the traditional metaphysical concepts,
as long as they are not really questioned.
A (general) addition: this really questioning, which Heidegger stands for, can only
be enacted if and when the metaphysical way of thinking is learned. Without it, a
difference of metaphysics on the one hand, and Heidegger’s proposed new thinking oto,
cannot come off the ground. In order to just understand the complexity of the (our)
situation: it is true as well, that metaphysical thinking can only be learned if one is
already focused towards another thinking. Mainly because metaphysics is already completed,
and has no more productive capacity. In the language of ‘What is metaphysics’ (1929):
Descartes, and all metaphysics, think of the tree of metaphysics, incl. the branches,
the sciences, but never reach for the ground, the element, it grows in. That is up to us,
and the only option for life left. Sticking to the sciences means sticking to what has
already died off, having left the essential ground of its origin. It is necessary to
think this, these words, and at the same time to *see* it around one. Phenomenology:
phenomenon and logos. (also BT, beginning)
rene
> ps. I am still working on your previous question about Heidegger
> and the mind-body problem; will come …. DV
I’m looking forward to it.
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
