Subject: Re: the o/o gulf (1)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:23:57 +0000


Rene, is this the text in GA29/30 to which you were referring:

>As surely as we can never comprehend absolutely the ensemble of beings in
>themselves we certainly do find ourselves stationed in the midst of beings
>that are revealed somehow as a whole. In the end an essential distinction
>prevails between comprehending the ensemble of beings in themselves and
>finding oneself in the midst of beings as a whole. The former is impossible
>in principle. The latter happens all the time in our existence. It does
>seem as though we cling to this or that particular being, precisely in our
>everyday preoccupations, as though we were completely abandoned to this or
>that region of beings. No matter how fragmented our everyday existence may
>appear to be, however, it always deals with beings in a unity of the
>whole, if only in a shadowy way. Even and precisely then when we are not
>actually busy with things or ourselves this as a whole overcomes us  for
>example in genuine boredom. Boredom is still distant when it is only this
>book or that play, that business or this idleness, that drags on. It
>irrupts when one is bored. [es ist einem langweilig] Profound boredom,
>drifting here and there in the abysses of our existence like a muffling
>fog, removes all things and men and oneself along with it into a remarkable
>indifference. This boredom reveals beings as a whole.

Ok, but isn't this very distinction between these two meanings of "boredom" 
precisely the distinction that I am trying to make with John Foster 
concerning anxiety: "distant" anxiety over "only" this or that thing, and 
"profound" anxiety in the face of "the abysses of our existence" (pure 
potentiality for being)? It seems to me that this text only further 
underscores the very o/o distinction I am making here.

>Another possibility of such revelation is concealed in our joy in the
>present existence and not simply in the person of a human being
>whom we love. Such being attuned, in which we are one way or another and
>which determines us through and through, lets us find ourselves
>among beings as a whole. The founding mode of attunement [die
>Befindlichkeit der Stimmung] not only reveals beings as a whole
>in various ways, but this revealing far from being merely incidental is 
>also the basic occurrence of our Da-sein.

The last phrase clearly indicates that he is speaking ontologically 
concerning what he calls "our joy in the present existence" which is not 
simply love for "the person of a human being." His characterization of this 
"joy" or "attunement" as a "FOUNDING mode" and a "basic occurrence of our 
Dasein" are blatantly ontological. It seems like a positive version of 
anxiety, or something like that (i.e., instead of disclosing through the 
collapse of beings, here the disclosure is through positively finding 
ourselves among beings as a whole - I dunno, I'd have to read more). But in 
any case, his distinction between this "joy in the present existence" and 
love for "the person of the human being" seems to correspond to my 
distinction.

> >the truth of rightness is factical,
> >whereas the truth of openness is ontological. So the very distinction you
> >are making between these two kinds of truths presupposes the very
> >distinction that you are trying to say is ambiguous in the first place! 
>So
> >if you don't want to spoil your reading of John Foster with the 
>"rigidity"
> >of the o/o distinction, then you also can't spoil your reading of ME with
> >the very same "rigidity" of the truth-as-rightness/truth-as-openness
> >distinction.
>
>Perfect. Precautions are always and everywhere needed. So I think
>I can say that I don't read you that way.
>As to rightness, it must be shown, not merely that it is prior, but how it
>departs from openness, how openness 'gives' itself as rightness,
>while holding itself back.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that rightness must be shown to be 
PRIOR to openness. Isn't it the reverse?

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



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