Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 20:20:53 -0400
Subject: beyng & irony






Michael,
     well...i can see y'r be'n true to the pretty 
safe ground of y'r empiricists' creed...
damning all difference & hermeneutic for guesswork...etc
     
     a confession...
     my faith's not so pure neither...
it's constant battle royal with  old doppelganger...
and his ferocious aspersions:
 brahmin humbug...boojwas geistestod...
nazi nonsense...nso on ad nauseam;
to which i can oppose only my pathetic little will-to...
j'ne sais kwa...beyond  humanist materialism...     

thanks,
bob

>You might be right about a baby being an example of "non->reflexive"
>absorbed being-in-the-world similar to Heidegger's example of >hammering.
>Then again, you might not be right. If you were to have picked a >rock or
>a tree, we would have fairly solid ground to say what the rock >or tree
>is aware of or unaware of. We are on pretty safe ground saying >the rock
>or the tree is not Daseining. But with a baby, especially since >you
>yourself cannot really recall the experience of being a baby >very well,any sort of conclusions you draw about the being-there >of a baby is
>guesswork. Now that's all I'm saying, Bob -- that MY hammering >is an
>experience I can talk about as being MY own, while the only >experience I
>can talk about as my own, with respect to a baby, is my >observation of
>the baby's actions.
>
>Michael S. 


     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---