self and other
June 24th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: No related posts
In a message dated 6/23/2007 11:29:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
artefact at t-online.de writes:
When you write “as myself in the here and now rather than “out there”
and dissolved in time”, this shows a lack of understanding of SuZ. The
self is not “dissolved in time” but comes to stand as a self precisely
within the three ecstatic temporal dimensions. To claim that the self is
only in the “here and now” is utter phenomenological nonsense since it
would mean that the self had no future and no past (beenness), and
therefore no continuity in time, but would be instantaneous, arising
uniquely in each present moment as a discrete self-point. If that were
truly the case, you would not know who you were from one instant to the
next. Furthermore, if the self were not a “widerschein”, a “shining
back” from the world through which each individual understands who it
is, it would again be an isolated empty self-point, abstract in the bad
sense of the word as the mere identity of I=I.
BXB:But here you contradict yourself when you add:”Psychology also
presupposes philosophical, i.e. ontological psychology in talking of the psyche or a
“living and operating force”, i.e. of life. Heidegger’s Dasein is one
respect a translation of Aristotle’s _Peri psychaes_, i.e. an
existential ontology of the ’soul’ as the _archae_ of living movement.
BXB:And that is precisely the case, the anima (qua “movong force”) as the
archai (original as in *ur,*i.e., the archetype not as a recapitulation, as
Heidegger would have it, of a “primoridial stucture” from the past. This is
rehashed psychoanalytics qua Darwin where the *ur* is only noted as from some
primordial past rather than the living existential moment of archai (the original and
not “first”) according to an archaeological temporal measure. That is
Heidegger’s undoing: the ontification of time as past, present and future, nevermind
that “the primordial” is in the here and now of self-experience by which “the
three ecstatic temporal dimensions” perdure, keeping in mind that ekstasis
means out of or besides being, i.e., para-being. But even more catastrophic for
the daseinification of self is that Heidegger is able only to allow its
differentiae as “other” as the “world” of object being and as an ontification of self.
Curiously enough, in the mythology of ancient Germans there was only past and
present but no concept of the future except as the climax of ragnorak,
eschaton, finito and then the repeat of the cycle from past to present. The notion
was that when the past became so fat and full it literally exploded in the
present and then “stepped back” as the future. Heidegger remains stuck somewhere
between such a past and its future and must fall back on dasein to fill out the
present as “world.” But dasein is an appropriate term and whose concept is as
old as the hills insofar as “out there” simply indicated a place in the sun
and the uncovering and extraversion of self. Accordingly, dasein must
presuppose the state of self as lethe, hidden, self-enclosed, introverted to extreme
and a Liebnitzean “windownless monad” by which nothing goes in and noting comes
out and essentially a state of being divested of self. In compensatory
response to this state, coined by the alchemist Gehard Dorn as the “unus mundus,” of
being. an sich as originally a state of undifferentiation that is timeless and
spaceless or otherwise know to the Melesian physiologoi as protohyle and
apieron or what is comparable as a state (of being) to the first day of Creation
according to Genesis characterized as the Void or the Chaos. Without
Heidegger’s help the next six days of daseinic creation proceed and arrive as World of
sense and experience and the Logos of Matter.
Accordingly, what he redundantly rehashes over and over again in SuZ is his
fixation on dasein as if he qua the German nation urgently required remove from
the “ur’ state of the unscrutable primordial present, in the here and now and
thus manage to arrive “out there.” But the “out there” as “other” is simply
itself for itself I=I and being as a tautological piece of self-predication.
And so he notes in SuZ that dasein winds up where it started and thus negates
itself in true Hegelian fashion. But of course this is a truism nihilistically
grounded insofar as Rome is Dasein for the Greeks, Alexander the dasein for
Thrace and more the catastrophe for Heidegger that “the other” is limited to
saeculm, secular time, historical time and by which his approach is grounded in
nihilism if not the same old ragnorak as the future. And horrifically enough,
this was to be the destiny of the Third Reich for which dasein represented
arrival at a dead end. That is all that Heidegger is telling us over and over
again in SuZ and which indicates he is stuck in the pleroma of non-being or Being
negated as simply out there in a world whose immanence is eschaton. But of
course, the term dasein is wonderfully appropriate to eschatologic reckoning. In
this sense Heidegger was a prophet for the 20th century German destiny and, as
it were, a self-fullfilling pre-emptor of what was to become the fuure.
Indeed, Adolph Hitler was indeed his puppet for the arrival of ragnorak as the
climax of dasein!
Sincerely;
Bernard
************************************** See what’s free at http://www.aol.com.
