Heidegger

>Joe to Ant:
>
>> you seem to be puzzled by the way language users use the same word time
>> and again even though the referent changes (however slightly) over time.
>>
>> take the word ‘chair’. I use this word to denote my chair day after day
>> even though the changes constantly. The fabric is getting worn, the
>> frame creaks more and more, there’s a coffee stain on it that wasn’t
>> there before, yada, yada, yada. but I still call it a chair.
>
>Joe, this is another interruption in your battle with Anthony and so can be
>disregarded if the flow gets too distracted by my brief musing. It seems to
>me that what words (say, chair, tree, I, etc {yes, even etc}) designate and
>identify is not the ever-changing material-energetic consistency of their,
>er, material-energetic constituents (to the extent to which the designated
>*are* {are identical to, are rendered as, are cast as} such
>materiality-energicity), but that which in each case and in its own way *is*
>*what* is ever-changing in its material-energetic consistency etc. Whether
>the tree (just outside my backdoor viewable now from my window as I type
>these words) that I designate as such with the word “tree” is in full leafy
>bloom (in summer) or starkly bereft of leafiness (in winter) or slowly dying
>as it just about stands or uprooted and replanted in Joni Mitchell’s
>horrendous tree museum is what is the same (and different to the other(s)
>and to nothingness) in each and every case, even every possible (but not yet
>or necessarily concrete) case. Identity here does not mean the same in the
>sense of exact identical quantum stste of the ever-changing
>material-energetic consistency/configuration (for example) of the tree. What
>we see as a tree is ’seeing’ a *what*, not an ever-changing retinally-given
>image or flickering of colour perceptions. The “referent” you refer to above
>is not that what(ness) that the word designates (in my sense) but a series
>of adjudged perceptions (that add up to the ever-changing, etc). Ah, but
>when it comes to human-being, the being that is human, da-sein (not the
>body-mind-thing), the word “da-sein” neither refers to the ever-changing nor
>to the never-changing, rather to difference its self (and the explicit
>advent of nothingness, but that’s another story).
>
>yada yada yadasein
>
>regards
>
>michaelP

Hi Michael,

I find the idea of Dasein as difference appealing, elegant. It
points to a core element in Dasein’s way of being., a sui-generous,
very generous being as becoming. This is a true wonder. Dasein
different-iates itself as does every other Dasaein. And each Dasein
does it in its own-most distinctive way. Where do all these
similarly distinctive Daseins get their ownmost distinctions from,
each with its way of being dasein as one’s own? From DIFFERENCE of
course, the very difference of difference, Dasein as difference, its
very own difference.

Best regards,

Allen
’s

>
>_______________________________________________
>heidegger mailing list
>heidegger@an-archos.com
>http://an-archos.com/mailman/listinfo/heidegger_an-archos.com
>http://heidegger.an-archos.com/

Posted on Sunday, April 27th, 2008 at 11:20 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback