Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 14:58:25 +0200
Subject: Re: Mine-ness Take 999


Cologne, 05 July 1998

jim schrieb:
>Also, I think that it is absolutely crucial that Mineness,
> CONSIDERED IN AND OF ITSELF, CONSIDERED AS BUT
> ONE ESSENTIAL CONSTITUENT OF, CONSIDERED AS BUT
> ONE ONTOLOGICAL EXISTENTIALE  (that's redundant, bt...) OF
> Dasein, be both EMPTY, without any ontical filling at all, and self-
> referential. If, SO CONSIDERED, Mine-ness were not empty, then, I
> think that Derrida's criticism as mentioned by one philosopher must be
> correct, namely: that H's Dasein 'comes to occupy the place of the
> "subject," the cogito or the classical "Ich denke." Why do I think this:
> if Mineness in itself is not empty, then ontic Dasein will have a logically
> private interior. Unless the 'stuff' of ontic Dasein's "private" thoughts and
> feelings are not rooted in Das Man or the other, then we end up back
> with Descartes again. So, this Mineness must have nothing of its own to
> offer than pure self-referentiality.

In a way, H.’s Dasein really does ‘come to occupy the place of the "subject," 
the cogito or the classical “Ich denke.”’. And precisely here is where one can 
learn a lot about the shift from subjectivity to Dasein. My-very-ownness is one 
aspect of Dasein’s Selbstsein (self-being), so the constitution of self here 
must be at the focus of attention. In the language of metaphysics, Dasein is, 
ontologically speaking, indeed a form lacking content.

> Ie, this Mineness which ontically characterizes Dasein as 'in each case
> being my own' is NOT, considered as such, the ontologically constituent
> Mineness of Dasein. That, ontically speaking, Dasein is 'in each case my
> own' ONLY INDICATES what the ontologically constituent Mineness
> is.
>
> So, how can we get a handle on this latter Mineness, as it is in and of
> itself? It seems that to understand Mine-ness as it is in itself, we need to
> get 'under' this ontical indication.

The password to get to the ontological heart of the matter of Dasein’s selfhood 
(and a fortiori its mine-ness) is Zeitlichkeit (temporality). I recommend a 
reading of GA26 Sections 12 and 13 entitled “Transcendence and Temporality 
(nihil originarium)” and “The Transcendence which comes about through 
Temporality and the Essence of Ground”, and also GA25 Section 25, esp. 25 e) 
“Time as Self-affection; Transcendental Apperception as Independence 
(Self-Standingness) and the Unity of Subjectivity”. (To understand this, of 
course, one needs to read the entire lecture course.) 

The coming-about of temporality (die Zeitigung der Zeitlichkeit) is the 
constituting of the horizon (of re sistance, standing-against) against which 
beings as such come to stand as such for understanding (for Kant, this means: 
the constitution of the objectivity of objects by pure understanding in the 
categories), and this constituting is at the same time self-affection, i.e. the 
crystallization of a per-sisting, con-stant ‘I can’. The Cartesian “cogito” (I 
think, I cogitate) becomes “I can...”, and this “I can...” is only possible 
because Dasein holds the re-sisting horizon of future before itself as the 
dimension into which it _can_ cast itself (Dasein as mode of being is 
essentially free possibility), and understand the being of beings in terms of 
this self-casting; in other words, the world is always understood in terms of a 
self-casting which provides the perspective for understanding, i.e. self-casting 
is the ‘skewer’ that passes through all the relevant intuitions and brings them 
to stand in an understanding of beings. 

Michael
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-  artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ artefact-AT-t-online.de-_-_ 
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-





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