Cologne, 30 May 1997
Henk,
We obviously haven't yet brought the phenomena under the rubric of sharing
clearly enough before us. Sharing can mean many things. Thus you write e.g.:
>>From a slightly different perspective...
Sharing a world is the sharing of beyng with beings.<<
and
>>What about Heidegger?s hammer? Isn?t he often using it,
even without noticing? And isn't it healthier in traffic to believe in a sharing
of beyng with beings called cars?<<
Sharing in this sense is simply being-in-the-world a la SuZ, i.e.
In-der-Welt-sein. But the word sharing has been introduced to come closer to the
phenomenon of Mitsein (and thus Fuersorge, caring-for...). I think it was Chris
who pointed out that on one level Mitsein means having a common world.
My last posting on this thread was trying to hone in on the sharing of world in
the sense of you-and-me, i.e. the personal encounter in which yours and my
singularity are shared with each other. This is an attempt to locate Buber's
Ich-Du in a phenomenological context sensitive to the ontological difference.
(The translation of Ich-Du as I-Thou is far too pathetic in my opinion -- I
prefer to talk of you-and-me.) The sharing of world between you-and-me is
different from equipmental sharing with others, say, in driving a car, where the
equipment of roads, road signs, car, etc. etc. is used together with others.
You write:
>>Shao Yung shared beyng with a butterfly.<<
and
>>Sharing beyng with beings is situational - I guess. <<
Since a butterfly is not Dasein, beyng cannot be shared with it. At least, that
is the whole issue surrounding Dasein having a world and the animal being poor
in world. There can be no sharing, because the butterfly is not is the There, is
not open to beings in their beyng, not open to beings _as such_. Beyng is not
shared with beings that are not Dasein.
Apart from this, there is the question of what sharing means with regard to
elucidating the phenomenon of you-and-me. There are of course many other
meanings of sharing, even in the sense of Mitsein.
The other question here at present concerns dreaming and how it can be described
in terms of sharing or nonsharing. In my last post I wanted to point out that
the phenomenon of dreaming must take in a temporal dimension: a dream is only
what I _have dreamt_; it is always _no more_, (nicht-mehr). This means that only
_retrospectively_ can we see we _have been_ dreaming. As long as I am dreaming,
I can be sharing my world with you in any way at all: talking to you, being
engaged in a common task such as plastering a wall, etc. I can drive a car in a
dream, have an accident, suffer bodily injury, end up in hospital. In the dream
I can also experience Mitsein in all its various forms. Only afterwards, when
the dream is _no more_ can I say: it was a dream. While dreaming, I do not dream
the dream _as_ a dream. The _as_, that is, the dream's being _as such_ is always
temporally retrospective.
>>In my opinion it makes a huge difference being Icarus
in a non-shared dream(world) or in a shared world.<<
This begs the question that a dream(world) is not shared. When I dream of
Heidegger, I am with Heidegger himself, I'm not just "picturing" myself with
Heidegger. This concept of "picturing" smacks of the representational
metaphysics of subjectivity.
So everything turns on coming to a better understanding of sharing.
Only then could it be decided whether it helps to elucidate the phenomonen of
dreaming. To do the latter, at the very least, the peculiar temporal structure
of dreaming must be taken into account: as being always _no longer_.
The phenomenon of bodily togetherness I addressed briefly in my last posting was
in the context of an encounter between you-and-me. Hence your coming at me with
Heidegger?s hammer is not relevant here, since that is equipmental
being-in-the-world.
The sharing of world I have in mind is one in which you _are_ in my world _as_
you, and I _am_ in your world _as_ I myself. It is this reciprocal overlapping
of world, of Theres, that I have been trying to get a hold of.
The question of beyng has to become a question here, which in this context means
that "I am", "you are", "we are" have to become question-able.
So perhaps we should leave dreaming aside for the moment and concentrate on the
phenomenon of sharing.
Regards,
Michael,
\\\ ° '~': '' /// artefact text and translation °~ \ ' ) ''' | .. \°
.{.\ ~. ' ~ { } .\ : ~ /// made by art /// _ °/ ~ : ~:~ \./''/
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ {.\ ~. ' ~ {} .\: artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx
; ' /// ° }.\ ~. ' ~ Dr Michael Eldred
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
