Heidegger

 http://www.webcom.com/artefact/untpltcl/….

— Bob Guevara wrote:

> Hello Michael,
> http://www.webcom.com/artefact/dlctcslf…. Bob
>
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: heidegger-bounces at an-archos.com
> [mailto:heidegger-bounces@an-archos.com] On Behalf Of Michael Eldred
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:01 AM
> To: Heidegger, An-archos
> Subject: Re: Horton hears a whoness
>
> Cologne 20-Mar-2008
>
> Joseph Polanik schrieb Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:49:05 -0500:
>
> > That Pete wrote:
> >
> > >Well, in “who am I”, I understand that the “am” is the domain of
> > >ontology, and if the answer is that “I” is “a mammal”, or “Wu Ming,
> > >General Citizen, SS# 123-45-6789″, then the answer is about where the
> > >”I” fits in a taxonomy or database, is knowledge and thus
> > >epistemological.
> >
> > >I’m curious about claims that who-ness is properly an issue of
> > >ontology. People are encountered in an openness, and the “who that I
> > >am” may be reflective happening in that open. But is that, in and of
> > >itself, sufficient to make whoness an ontological issue?
>
> ME: Whoness as a shining-back (Widerschein) from the world. “Heidegger is at
> pains to comprehend “this enigmatic shining-back of the self out of things
> philosophically” (diesen rätselhaften Widerschein des Selbst aus den Dingen
> her philosophisch, GA24:229) ” (
> http://www.webcom.com/artefact/dlctcslf….. )
>
> >
> > JP: who is claiming that who-ness is properly an issue of ontology?
> >
> > look at the sample answers to ‘who am I?’ that you gave. the first
> > (’mammal’) is also a potential answer to ‘what am I?’ the second (’Wu
> > Ming, General Citizen, SS# 123-45-6789′) is not.
>
> ME: Rather the opposite. Whatness is the traditional cover-up for the
> genuine phenomenon of whoness which the personal pronoun “I” is already on
> the way to skipping over. Anyone claiming that “ontology concerns what there
> is; so, ‘what am I?’ is an ontological question;” (Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:49:25
> -0500) has no philosophical question at all, nor even the inkling thereof,
> but is hard-wired to rotate incessantly in a circle of self-affirmation, to
> dance a self-mirroring pirouette spawning an impervious, self-confirming
> network of axioms, premisses, postulated predicates, flimsy
> sub-classifications for which neither “what” nor “am” nor “I” is even the
> ghost of a question. In truth, however, each of these little words signifies
> an enigma.
>
> >
> > JP: a taxonomy is a tree structure; and, in a taxonomy of all that is,
> > there
> > would be a node for mammal. the mammal node would have a subnode for
> > human; but, the human node would not have a subnode for humans with SS#
> > 123-45-6789.
> >
> > a taxonomy has nodes based on what-ness not who-ness.
> >
>
> ME: This is an understanding of ontology on the level of what computer
> scientists these days understand by ontology when they write Artificial
> Intelligence programs. (Please direct substantial job applications to the
> Pentagon, Robotic Warfare Division.)
>
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact at t-online.de _-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred (c)_-_-
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> heidegger mailing list
> heidegger at an-archos.com
> http://an-archos.com/mailman/listinfo/he…
> http://heidegger.an-archos.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> heidegger mailing list
> heidegger at an-archos.com
> http://an-archos.com/mailman/listinfo/he…
> http://heidegger.an-archos.com/
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR…

Posted on Friday, March 21st, 2008 at 2:15 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback