Re: Mind & Body, One More Time

On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro wrote:

> Dear TMB,
> Henry did most of the work in answering you
> Maybe in your answer _a certain extremism at work_

Yes.

> just read the first sentece carefully: (In German):
> Dass ein (!) Dasein faktisch mit Wissen und Willen der Stimmung Herr werd=
en
> kann, soll und muss, mag (!) in gewissen M=F6glichkeiten (!) (can you see=
 how
> many _cautelas_ or _mays_ are here at work?...) des Existierens einen
> Vorrang von Wollen und Erkentnnis bedeuten.

Sorry, can't read German.

> (probably is this sentence a recall of some (Jaspers?) common view(s) of
> psychology (or folks psychology...)
> Immediately he weakens (!) this mastery (that can take place in certain
> situations...)

Yes, he does in numerous ways.


> Nur darf das nicht dazu verleiten...
> Knowledge and Will are carefully (ontologically) undermined by moods (whe=
re
> do you hear will to power over moods in general on the basis of knowledge
> and will?, he says _mag_, that is somehow an answer (!) to a non explicit
> counterargument...)

Sorry...can't read German.

> Finally: how do we become _masters_ of moods? not through knowledge and
> will, but through another (contrary) mood (Gegenstimmung)
> Of course everything is _more open to exploration than H. indicates_. Who=
 is
> questioning this?

True, it is open to more exploration, though in the setting of Heidegger's
thought, it doesn't seem, effectively speaking, very open. But in any
event, yes: he makes it clear that what is related to "handling" moods is
counter-mood, and *reflection*, the lack of which helps to bring about
*bad moods*.


> Where is H. _desubstantializing mood's causes_?

One doesn't enter the *substance* of moods, getting into the thick of
them, their situations, etc. very much, it seems to me. This can be ok, or
not. But his approach leads to a *general tendency*. H leaves a lot open,
ostensibly, but it is all tied in to a particular existential trajectory,
so a lot gets *effectively* closed off anyhow. The problems that the
picture that comes into view (and one must be willing to look at the big
pictures that are possible here, however prudently) seems to have
something missing. A couple fights. The husband is in a bad mood, so is
the wife. The way it appears to work out is that this has little to do
with the *stuff of relationships* and mainly to do with just: falling, as
if for no reason, into a "bad mood", as if it doesn't have to do with
previous comments, the status of this or that within the relationship,
etc. This has to do with reflecing on and learning about relationships qua
relationships, not moods qua moods, of course. But *Heidegger is not about
such exploration*. While it is possible, it is not his main concern. The
problem is that as one engages in his lines of thinking, the *effect* is
that of a certain perspective, a certain relation to moods, a comportment,
a posture, tendency, etc., in which things are *put in service* of the
maintenance of the existential-ontological understanding, and *not in the
service of other things*. This condition itself actually has
existential-ontological significance, and, as Levinas seems to suggest,
ethical significance as well.

What I'm saying is very roughtly hewn, I realize (my picture), and
Heidegger "allows" for this "deeper entry into moods and relationships":
that is part of the knowlege and reflection through which one handles, if
not masters, one's moods. Even, the art of happiness in a relationship. In
a certain way, this may be irrelevant, but I'm not sure how irrelevant it
is. I think the movements of Heidegger's thinking here issues from the
*ex* of "existence". In other words, moods are not *entered* -- he is not
about that, aside from fear/anxiety --, but rather, transcended and
allowed to *become phenomena* to Dasein in its maintenance of its
*existential undersanding* on the existentiel level. *There is no way to
get at what I'm getting at here aside from some rather "big pictures"*.
Heidegger wants to save Being, not relationships, right? That's not his
job. But the problem is that there are paths into "Being" that are
*founded* on approaches that are fundamentallly different from
Heidegger's, founded on a different ways of dealing with, for example, the
ontological-existential import of *moodedness as such*, etc.=20

There is this general ek-stasis that marks the *approach to moods* (and
other existentalia) that takes place in Heidegger's thinking here. There
are numers "net" results that are hard to grasp or even see. Further,
there are *alternative* approaches to *attaining* "existentiality",
"awakened Dasein", etc., that need to be considered. There is no way to do
so in the vicinity of Heidegger when one is *too* bogged down in close
textual reading, just as, for Heidegger, there is no way to existentiality
if one is too bogged down in the particular stuff of moods, concerns,
etc., *in a certain way*. This shows up, just for example, when
"depression" is considered. While, "en route", one may stop and think more
about depression, the "routedness", the powerful force of Heidegger's
*direction* tends to pull one right one right out of productive
exploration and back "with the program" of hanging-together and falling in
with the particular existential trajectory which, decidedly, *has
somewhere to go*. I question this. I question where it goes, and how it
gets there. And I do bring that question to bear in Heidegger, the
philosopher, as this relates to the Holocaust. This is "big picture"
stuff, I realize. I will hold that dismissal of all "big picture" viewing,
sketching, thinking, access, etc., *aside from the one that Heidegger's
path leads into" is just plain wrong, though surely and understandable
mistake.=20


> To say something escapes _Heidegger_s thinking altogether_ is pretty naiv=
:

It can be...

> of course many things escape H.s thinking (and everybody's),

=2E..or not, depending.

> You seem to
> have a pretty overview on _H.s thinking_ (_altogether_).

There is quite lot of overview, but there are specific and close textual
views as well. There is a preponderance, a rather crippled one, let me
note, on my side, precisely because it is held so powerfully in check, not
addressed, etc., on the part of others.=20

 With this kind of
> commentary we (I) cannot argue further (altogether).

I don't really want to *argue*, but I think close readings should be
balanced with more "big pictures", sketches, etc., and there should be
more dialogue between the two ranges of focus. Not only do I *not* want to
*argue*, the thinking I would much prefer to get into has to do with the
opening of the *question of violence* and the *question of polemics* as
such. In Heidegger's "big picture", "polemos" is all to easily extolled
and rendered in rather conservative strokes. I *end up being more
polemical*, but this is in fact based in *less* polemicality. My
polemicality is, however, more explicit and addressable, already the sign
of some lessening of polemicality. As much as the discourse in this list
is "nice" and less prone to "argument", this does not, when thought of in
terms of the *essence of polemos* and *the essence of violence* assure us
that there is *less* polemics going on. There may, in fact, be *more* that
precisely corresponds to a certain "niceness".


> H. lost the _They, not to mention the Him_, pretty vague - altogether.
> kind regards
> rafael
>=20

I did not suggest that Heidegger was "lost in the They", nor even "lost in
the Him", though in the latter case it appears problematic. But
considering Germany, the Furher system, Heidegger's enthusiams and
silences, etc., one could make a case easily enough that for Heidegger
authenticity meant a shaking loose of the They but not a shaking loose of
"the Him" (the Furher, the Rector, one's Hero, the one or two philosophers
Heideggrer deemed were all that should really be necessary for a
university, etc.)=20

Yes, again, my thinking here is "top heavy". I think this is because the
thinking on the list here tends to be too "bottom heavy"; too bound up in
close readings. It is *very hard* to describe how this can be a problem,
but it has to do with how general trends are set even as the most
meticulous specific work is done. We have: a path. Steps are taken, rigors
and well researched and thought through. Each step is assured and secured.
The path proceeds. Nevertheless, it proceed in this or that way, while
other paths are possible and are not taken. If we look at the whole of the
path (to some extent), while we will never see perfectly all, we can see
how it leads here, and not there, etc. There is a kind of irreducible
"sensitivity to initial conditions". When Heidegger uses this or that
example, takes this or that turn, etc., it sets the stage for what is to
follow. And things do follow, of course. The problem is that Heidegger's
path reads like "the path to end all other paths". I know that sounds
pretty critical. Well, it is. It does read like that to some extent, and
tends to have that effect on readers, or so it seems to me. Perhaps only
some real knowledge of *other possible paths* can help to see how this
could be the case.

But of course, Heidegger's path has both close steps (SZ) and big pictures
(thinking on path as such, "Thinker as Poet", etc.). We, too, have to have
both kinds of steps. The way it is working out, though, is that
Heidegger's language seeks a kind of *definitive* status that appears to
close off any possible view of *alternative paths*, alternative "trees"
*and* "forests", etc.  People may just want to stay on the Heideggerian
path, and that is fine. But to some extent it appears to me that in
certain ways that path, and other related paths which which Hediegger's
path resonates or which his even seeks to help sure up, want not only "to
be", but to be the *only paths*. Furthermore, critique *of the
Heideggerian path itself*, regardless of the question of alternatives, is
in order as well.=20

I'm sorry if my "overviewing" seems offensive and irresponsible. I am just
as likely to plunge into a close reading, at least when I can, and frankly
I deeply admire Heidegger's thought on so many levels. He remains a
beloved teacher for me. But I think the issues I am trying to get at are
important.=20

Regards,

TMB




     --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---