Heidegger

Cologne 28-Oct-2007

Joseph Polanik schrieb Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:07:56 -0500:

> 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?

ME: It’s not a matter of the viewer’s opinion, but of what we, presumably
thinking through this simple phenomenon, see and understand. And thinking
through the ontological order of the phenomena, it is apparent that seeing
something is ontologically prior both to seeing an ink-blot and seeing a bat
in the ink-blot. Why? Because both ink-blot and bat are instances of
SOMETHING, and not the other way round. Without already understanding (a
priori) the category of SOMETHING, it would be impossible for the viewer to
see the ink-blot AS such at all, let alone the ink-blot AS SOMETHING ELSE,
namely, a bat. (But modern ‘thinkers’ ‘think’, in their topsy-turvy
non-thinking, that they already have grasped the concrete thing
ontologically merely in its sensuous givenness before their eyes, and that
everything else is ‘merely’ an abstraction…)

Moreover, who’s talking about the ink-blot having “the power of
self-disclosure”? By introducing “power”, you are employing, without further
examination, the name for one of the crucial phenomena that must be at issue
in any ontology, viz. power (_dynamis_). And, as I pointed out in my last
post, the ink-blot’s showing of itself AS such is enabled by the category of
SOMETHING, a phenomenon the Greek philosophers could still see, but we
smarties today, blinded by Cartesian and British empiricist prejudice, no
longer can see.

>
> 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?

ME: The ink-blot is simply itself, showing itself AS something with certain
qualities which define it as an ink-blot. The viewer is able to see the
ink-blot AS the representation of a bat, or is even able to mistake it for a
bat (it SEEMS to be a bat), and not simply as a representation of a bat.
Your silly remark about the ink-blot being able to detect the viewer’s
personality, of course, depends on choosing one side of your fallacious,
either-or dichotomy between discovering VERSUS disclosure, which is a RIGGED
choice. Furthermore, your talk of the ink-blot’s “power”, etc. is enmeshed
in the modern metaphysical prejudice that all subjectivity is to be thought
along the lines of human subjectivity. The human being as (the sole) subject
is a product of the Cartesian casting of being that posits the ego as the
sole subject. And that is precisely what is questionable and at issue. For
Greek thinking, the subject (_hypokeimenon_) was what we today, from within
the Cartesian casting, think unthinkingly and unquestioningly from within
our now (apparently) self-evident, common-sense prejudice as the OBJECT.

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_). So your making fun of reflexive constructions such as “the
ink-blot shows/discloses itself as…” is merely an expression of ignorance
and not to be taken seriously.

>
> >>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.

ME: Where is the “infinite regress”? I have already shown in my last post
where the buck stops, namely, with the categories as Gestalten of being.
These categories are not infinitely receding, but precisely in between, in
the ONTOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE, which, as you professed initially (Oddly Enough)
you do not understand. If you don’t understand it, why sabotage any
possibility of ever understanding it by merely restating your metaphysical
prejudices?

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

Posted on Sunday, October 28th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback