Heidegger

In a message dated 6/15/2008 12:03:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
michael at sandwich-de-sign.co.uk writes:

in the total absence of any reality of any reality type; in the total
> absence of any existent of any mode of existence; in the total
> absence of any being of any mode of being; etc., — what asserts ‘I am
> self-aware’?

Well, in a highly intuitive sense, for me, that some being can say (can
assert, can (sup)pose, can throw its self out beyond its self) it is
“self-aware” means that this being’s be-ing is not what it is. How: about
that?

regards

michaelP

Michael;
If this being is not what it IS, it is beingless. The problem here is the
lack of disambiguation complicated by the fact that beingless
presupposes the absence of self awareness or the refusal to “Confession of
Total ignorance (ME).” But that is where philosophy ends and psychology may
begin to better reckon with an ontological awareness and a philosophical point of
view. Short of that entelechal process a materialist, object fixated
“philosophy” merely engenders the global cult of total Ignorance, i.e., the One
identified with the Many that is the mirror image of the many identified with the
One. In either case the identification begins with One and precludes the Zero
(no-thing) and the unit before the One. Denial of Zero represents a simplistic
case of ontological anxiety or thanatophobia.
Sincerely;
Bernard

**************Vote for your city’s best dining and nightlife. City’s Best
2008.  http://citysbest.aol.com?ncid=aolacg0005…)

Posted on Sunday, June 22nd, 2008 at 6:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback