This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C17C07.6EDA4C60
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Re: Why is there anything at all..Micheal P
......things to think...........
things come to pass (away/over/under/by)
coming-passing: the thinging of things
things are events
(things) are : the thing
things : bring thinghood
things are : given presence
what gives?
bye
But things do not exist. What exists is 'this' or 'that' and these are =
'human expressions' and 'appearances' arising from the thing having it's =
existence as a concept, a natural concept even of the soul.
I think it was Piaget who believed that in order for the infant to be =
able to think (to have cognitive ability) required 'object permanence'. =
Prior to sensibility (intuition, emotion, value) and understanding =
(critical thinking, logic) the imagination has to represent to =
consciousness objects (things) which are show to the imagination, =
memory, as complex objects. When the term thing is used to refer =
(referent) to something, we usually mean 'this' color, or 'persona', and =
so on. When a person refers to a person for instance who is not 'known' =
they usually describe that person using the 'police' form of =
identification: white male, 6'6", blue eyes, but rarely do they describe =
the person as 'deeply endowed with sensibility, good taste, and =
morality'.=20
Although the person is still the same 'thing' and there can be no =
mistake about the identity of the person, the person has a completely =
new identity to some other person whom knows 'this' or 'that' about the =
person. A person without a cultural appreciation, is not apprehensible =
to the culture of the other person is said to lack sensibility regarding =
that other persons sensibility.=20
Heidegger discusses some of these points in the section in the Kant book =
on imagination. Heidegger questions why Kant may have neglected to =
include imagination as one form of knowing. Instead Kant [in Pure =
Reason] asserts that the two forms of knowing are sensibility =
(intuition) and understanding (logic or cognition).=20
Thus if Piaget is correct, the imagination is very important in terms of =
making 'objects permanent' for the memory.=20
Essential thinking thus is thinking about the essence of the thing, or =
personhood, of the other human subject. If thinking was strictly =
cognitive and logical, then the person would not have much 'this' or =
'that' (intersubjective), lack culture, sensibility, and generally be =
inapprehensible, except for the police profile of the physical person.=20
Things really do not exist because that would limit what is certain to =
be included in the thing from the outset. Often it is what is 'within' =
our own sensibility that awakens us to the 'this' of the other. I can =
think of many situations where this is very certainly the case.
more later
john foster
e -----=20
From: Michael Pennamacoor=20
To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: Why is there anything at all
kenneth:
>btw, i like to image tropes not as 'figures' but as a way toward, if =
not
>enlightenment itself, at least a "turning toward the light"
michael:
.........things to think...........
things come to pass (away/over/under/by)
coming-passing: the thinging of things
things are events
(things) are : the thing
things : bring thinghood
things are : given presence
what gives?
bye
------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C17C07.6EDA4C60
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: Why is there anything at all</TITLE>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#00ffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>..Micheal P</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>......things to think...........<BR><BR><FONT=20
color=3D#ff0000>things come to pass =
(away/over/under/by)<BR><BR>coming-passing:=20
the thinging of things<BR><BR>things are events<BR><BR>(things) are : =
the=20
thing<BR><BR>things : bring thinghood<BR><BR>things are : given=20
presence<BR><BR>what gives?<BR></FONT><BR><FONT=20
color=3D#808080><B>bye</B></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>But things do not exist. What exists is 'this' =
or 'that'=20
and these are 'human expressions' and 'appearances' arising =
from the=20
thing having it's existence as a concept, a natural concept even of =
the=20
soul.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>I think it was Piaget who believed that in order =
for the=20
infant to be able to think (to have cognitive ability) required 'object=20
permanence'. Prior to sensibility (intuition, emotion, value) and =
understanding=20
(critical thinking, logic) the imagination has to represent to =
consciousness=20
objects (things) which are show to the imagination, memory, as complex =
objects.=20
When the term thing is used to refer (referent) to something, we usually =
mean=20
'this' color, or 'persona', and so on. When a person refers to a person =
for=20
instance who is not 'known' they usually describe that person using the =
'police'=20
form of identification: white male, 6'6", blue eyes, but rarely do they =
describe=20
the person as 'deeply endowed with sensibility, good taste, and =
morality'.=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>Although the person is still the same 'thing' =
and there=20
can be no mistake about the identity of the person, the person has a =
completely=20
new identity to some other person whom knows 'this' or 'that' about the =
person.=20
A person without a cultural appreciation, is not apprehensible to the =
culture of=20
the other person is said to lack sensibility regarding that other =
persons=20
sensibility. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>Heidegger discusses some of these points in the =
section in=20
the Kant book on imagination. Heidegger questions why Kant may have =
neglected to=20
include imagination as one form of knowing. Instead Kant [in Pure =
Reason]=20
asserts that the two forms of knowing are sensibility (intuition) and=20
understanding (logic or cognition). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>Thus if Piaget is correct, the imagination is =
very=20
important in terms of making 'objects permanent' for the memory. =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>Essential thinking thus is thinking about the =
essence of=20
the thing, or personhood, of the other human subject. If thinking was =
strictly=20
cognitive and logical, then the person would not have much 'this' or =
'that'=20
(intersubjective), lack culture, sensibility, and generally be =
inapprehensible,=20
except for the police profile of the physical person. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>Things really do not exist because that would =
limit what=20
is certain to be included in the thing from the outset. Often it is what =
is=20
'within' our own sensibility that awakens us to the 'this' of the other. =
I can=20
think of many situations where this is very certainly the =
case.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>more later</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>john foster</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>e ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A href=3D"
mailto:pennamacoor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"=20
title=3Dpennamacoor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Michael Pennamacoor</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
href=3D"
mailto:heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"=20
=
title=3Dheidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=
inia.edu</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, December 03, 2001 =
9:14=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Why is there =
anything at=20
all</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff><B>kenneth:<BR></B></FONT><BR>>btw, i=20
like to image tropes not as 'figures' but as a way toward, if=20
not<BR>>enlightenment itself, at least a "turning toward the=20
light"<BR><BR><FONT color=3D#808080><B>michael:<BR><BR>.........things =
to=20
think...........<BR></B></FONT><BR><FONT color=3D#ff0000>things come =
to pass=20
(away/over/under/by)<BR><BR>coming-passing: the thinging of=20
things<BR><BR>things are events<BR><BR>(things) are : the =
thing<BR><BR>things=20
: bring thinghood<BR><BR>things are : given presence<BR><BR>what=20
gives?<BR></FONT><BR><FONT=20
color=3D#808080><B>bye<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></B></FONT></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C17C07.6EDA4C60--
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
