From: ay581@xxxxxxxxxxx (Robert V. Scheetz)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 20:44:18 -0400
>I must be missing your mark, Bob. I see a difference between being
>involved with my swinging a hammer, and my observing someone else --
>baby or otherwise -- sucking a treat (or anything else). The >experiences
>I have are mine. The experiences you have are not mine. There is no way
>I can know your experience as a baby. And there is no way I can know my
>experience as a baby. I can only presume....
>The question, of course, would be whether there is a person, I, being,
>Dasein, etc., already resident in the infant psyche peering out upon >the
>world unprompted, or whether the person (Baby Dasein) comes into being
>betwixt what is a bundle of drives and reflexes, on the one hand, and >the
>conforming forces of family and society, on the other. Is Dasein rooted >in
>our genetics, in other words, or is it rooted in our socio-cultural >histories?
Steve and Michael,
there's no question of biography or history, facticity.
dasein's past is always the present of his past...
dasein's babyhood always the presence-ing of
the ecstatic temporality of his babybeing-there.
h's pt (at least one of them) with hammerring
was how it instanced non-reflexive being-in...
agent-implement-world becoming herein undifferentiated...
thereby disclosing the primordial ontological structure of
concernful absorbtion of dasein in the world;
and corelatively, the secondary nature of
subjectivity and mentation.
...tell me subbing a suckling babe doesn't
improve and sharpen this analytic?
the hermeneutic of that ecstatic temporality
is richly-n-cogently manifest in the perrenial plethora
of poetizing the prelapsarian trope...sorry
genesis to wordsworth, rousseau, barney...nso on.
i suppose baby-dasein may be just another
"primordial form" ignis fatuus,
but it has the advantage of
h's pre-socratics or philology, no?
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---