Heidegger

Cologne 31-Oct-2007

Bernx at aol.com schrieb Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:59:26 EDT:

> In a message dated 10/29/2007 1:02:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> artefact at t-online.de writes:
>
> Cologne 29-Oct-2007
>
> Bernx at aol.com schrieb Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:48:37 EDT:
>
> > In a message dated 10/28/2007 6:13:22 PM Eastern Daylight
> Time,
> > artefact at t-online.de writes:
> >
> > Heidegger often renders “phenomenon”, “das Phänomen”
> as “das
> > Sichzeigende”,
> > i.e. literally “that which shows itself”. Modern
> English is
> > a poor language
> > for this, because it does not have many reflexive
> verbs
> > (unlike German), and
> > has no MIDDLE voice at all (unlike ancient Greek). To
>
> > translate German
> > reflexive verbs, English usually (misleadingly)
> resorts to
> > PASSIVE voice. Thus, for example, “Es zeigt sich,
> daß…” is
> > rendered “It becomes apparent that…” A key word in
> > phenomenology, namely “phenomenon”, is from Gk.
> > _phainomenon_, the present participle in the middle
> or
> > passive voice of _phainein_ employed as a noun. The
> middle
> > voice character of _to phainomenon_ comes across in
> German
> > by rendering it as “das Sichzeigende”, literally,
> “that
> > which shows itself”, whereas modern English resorts
> > invariably to a passive construction, “that which is
> shown”.
> > The excellent standard reference Benseler says of _to
>
> > phainomenon_ “der Schein, das was sich jmdm. in der
> > Erscheinung so zeigt”, i.e. “the manifestation, that
> which
> > shows itself to someone in the appearance”, as
> opposed to
> > “_to dokoun_, was er in seinen Gedanken dafür hält”
> (”what
> > he holds to be in his thoughts”). _To dokoun_ is what
> seems
> > to be and what is held to be such-and-such in opinion
>
> > (_doxa_).
> >
> > Michael;It becomes apparent here that the German syntax
> projects the
> > “I” (ego) into *phenomenon* so that it is able to speak
> for itself
> > (”that which shows itself”). The object (phenomenon) as
> such is thus
> > allowed an autonomy be depriving the ego of its “I-ness.”
> But then
> > the object in turn loses its “thatness” as object “out
> there” (”that
> > which is shown”) which it would be less in passive voice
> (in English)
> > insofar as “thatness” indicates the separateness of
> subject and
> > object.
>
> ME: This is far too convoluted, and it presupposes the ego
> as the
> fundamentum absolutum from which all else is projected,
> which is
> precisely what is at issue.
>
> BXB: Yes, that is true. But without an active ego there is no
> possibilityof (unconscious) projection. Projection, at least
> psychologically, is always predicated as “unconscious projection.”
> Without the ego there is nothing to project into as would be the case
> with an animal.
>
> ME:The ego first became subject in modern
> (Cartesian) metaphysics; in the Middle Ages, by contrast,
> the human
> being was the obiectum of the supreme being, God. “Thatness”
> as a
> philosophical term is simply that a being is, its existence
> (not in
> Heidegger’s sense of Existenz). Thatness is the complement
> of whatness,
> quidditas. In Latin, “subiectum” is the translation of Gk.
> _hypokeimenon_, “that which underlies”. What is still
> subiectum in Latin
> philosophy becomes in the modern age the object, i.e. “that
> which is
> thrown toward the subject”, namely, the ego cogito as the
> posited
> fundamentum absolutum. Along with this goes a turning
> topsy-turvy of an
> historical world.
> BXB: It is a long shot to claim the ego came into being with
> Cartesian metaphysics. What is topsy turvey is that the
> supreme being became identified with and as the ego during
> the historical secularization. In any case the ego was
> always active, eg., as in the case of Job.
>
ME: I didn’t claim, “the ego came into being with Cartesian
metaphysics”. I said, “The ego first became subject in modern
(Cartesian) metaphysics,” and that “as the posited
fundamentum absolutum”.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact at t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

>
> >
> > In this sense, English, following Latin is significatory
> (semiotic)
> > whereas the reflexive German remains comfortable with
> connotation and
> > that which remains in contingency to the symbolic.
>
> ME: Latin’s affinity to the Greek, especially in philosophy,
> is much
> stronger than English’s, which became a philosophical
> language only in
> the modern age in the struggle to establish the ego cogito
> (against
> medieval Christian metaphysics) as the subject underlying
> all that is
> (which today has become a self-evident, unquestioned piece
> of
> common-sense, the death of all philosophy).
>
> BXB: certainly “common sense” has displaced philosophy, at least since
> the pre-Socratic physiologoi and the Eleatics both of which stood in
> contrast to the common sense of mythopoeic experience and the abscence
> of Thinking.
>
> ME:Latin also has plenty of reflexive verbs, e.g. sibi
> consciscere = sich entschließen = lit. to resolve oneself
> to…, or sibi conscire = sich
> bewußt sein = lit. to be aware oneself of…
>
> Modern German still makes lavish use of reflexive verbs,
> which are close
> to Gk. middle voice, in contrast to English, which,
> philosophically
> speaking, is the language of modern subjectivist
> metaphysics. For sound
> English common-sense, the only subject is the human subject;
> it is
> unable to think anything else as subiectum, and overlooks
> even the hints
> that the English language itself provides. E.g. in modern
> German one can
> say “Eine Tür verbirgt sich hinter dem Schrank.”, literally
> “A door
> hides itself behind the cupboard”, which however is
> automatically
> rendered in English in the passive voice “A door is hidden
> behind the
> cupboard”.
>
> BXB:The presence and utility of “is” contradicts that insofar as “is”
> presupposes a hider or agency of hiding.
>
> ME: In English we then go in search of the subject who hid
> the
> door behind the cupboard, but even English has the usage of
> an
> impersonal passive for which no (human-like) subject is even
> tacitly
> presupposed. When we say in English, “The sun is hidden
> behind the
> mountain”, we’re not implying that someone hid the sun
> behind the
> mountain. Similarly, when in German we say, “Die Sonne
> verbirgt sich
> hinter dem Berg,” lit. “The sun hides itself behind the
> mountain,” we
> are not suggesting that the sun is like a human subject
> playing
> hide-and-seek. The same holds true ceteris paribus when we
> say in
> English, “The sun now shows itself from behind the
> mountain.” We thus
> see that, even in English, one does not have to resort
> always to passive
> constructions, and the example does not imply any solar
> animism at which
> smart (i.e. super-stupid) Anglo-Saxon common-sense could
> poke fun at.
>
> BXB: since I must distinquish between passive reflexive and active
> reflexivethe former distinctly refers to magical animism, ie,
> projection into the object (and the world out there) without the
> presence of the ego.
>
> ME: So there is hope yet for English as a philosophical
> language, but only when those rare ones with sufficient
> linguistic sensibility and knowledge of established
> philosophical languages (notably ancient Greek) start to
> exploit the latent possibilities still slumbering in
> English.
>
> BXB: I would certainly not vouch for “established philosophical
> languages” or any instituted (*instatuere* to place in being) language
> or mode of thought as nothing more than a restriction of speculative
> thinking by an instituted form of sophistry. Indeed, the highlights
> of Greek philosophy occurred as the ego challenged what was instituted
> as an established whatever. Isn’t that why Socrates was put to death?
> And philosophers have been battling established forms of philosophical
> languages ever since. And of course Nietzsche was the exemplar of such
> ego dissidence. Disclosure is, of course, an expression of such
> dissidence and the via regia to discovery.

Posted on Tuesday, October 30th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback