Heidegger

Michael Eldred wrote:
>
> Joseph Polanik http://what-am-i.net schrieb
>
>>Michael Eldred wrote:

>>>ME: If the “physical being” does not show itself AS such-and-such,
>>>the “I” cannot discover it.
>>
>>the question is: did the inkblot show itself to be the bat or did you
>>discover the bat in the inkblot?

>ME: Here there are at least three steps that lead successively deeper
>into the ontological structure:
>
>i) The viewer sees the ink-blot as (the representation of) a bat.
>(Presumably your example refers to the Rorschach-test sitiuation.)
>Insofar, the viewer also sees the ink-blot AS ink-blot and understands
>the difference between the ink-blot and (representation of) a bat.
>
>ii) The viewer sees the ink-blot itself, ontologically prior to seeing
>it as (the representation of) a bat.
>
>iii) More originarily, the viewer sees the ink-blot (and presumably
>also the piece of paper bearing the ink-blot) AS SOMETHING.

Yes, the viewer sees a bat in the inkblot; and, may or may not also see
the inkblot as an inkblot or, more abstractly, as a something; and, the
viewer may or may not have an opinion as to whether seeing the inkblot
is ontologically or chronologically prior to seeing the bat in the
inkblot; but, how does any of this prove that the inkblot has the power
of self-disclosure or explain where such a power comes from?

how would an inkblot get the power to detect a viewer’s personality
traits so that it would ‘know’ to show itself as a bat to those with one
personality quirk and as a tomato to those with some other personality
quirk?

>>how can a particle disclose its dynamic properties (eg its spin) when
>>those properties don’t even have definite values in between
>>observations of that property?
>>
>>did the number 3 disclose itself as a prime number; or, did some
>>ancient mathematician discover that three was a prime number?

>ME: Again you offer only an either-or choice between a subject
>discovering or a being disclosing itself. Why not both or why not a
>third alternative?

why not both? because that leads to an infinite regress. you are
claiming that I, this subject, can not discover what it, that object,
does not self-disclose. I then ask ‘how did I discover that this object
has the power of self-disclosure?’. you would have to reply that the
object has the power to self-disclose that it has the power of
self-disclosure. etc.

Joe

–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
 http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@

Posted on Thursday, November 8th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback