Heidegger

In a message dated 10/30/2007 11:19:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
artefact at t-online.de writes:

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”.

BXB:Yes, of course, Michael. I appreciate the difference. I find, however,
that expressing this as “the ego first became subject” fails to notice that ego
and subject are mutual correlates. The subject without ego reduces it to a
pre-humanoid (pre conscious) “subject” incapable of subjectivity. What I better
have in mind is the seculariation of the ego moving as such from the sacred to
the profane. This would include the ego’s reduction to the plurality and its
loss of essence or being. This is, of course, a modern phenomenon or what I
would euphemize as the *democratization of the soul (psyche)* to the extent that
the ego is no longer beholden to the self. “Common sense” is a by-product of
this _dissociation_
 http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?quer…) and by which the distinction between subject and
object become relativized and as such fusing them, precluding the possibility of
unity. Fusion and unity often predicate each other in English. How is the
difference drawn in German.
Sincerely;
Bernard

_Bernx at aol.com_ (mailto:Bernx@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 Wednesday, October 31st, 2007 at 2:05 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback