Michael,
> maybe it would be useful/necessary to distinguish between
> _digital beings_ and the _digital casting of beings_
> both presuppose the digital casting of Being.
>>The ?casting? being the ontological side of the ontological difference? <<
yes
>>A digitized tree could be an image of a tree like a photo (visual image
data),
or it could be other sorts of data collected from the tree. The tree itself
gives of itself its data, which can then be ?computed? in various ways that
reveal the tree to Dasein in various ways. The data itself are just binary
strings which, when suitably computed by a program, disclose the tree in
various
ways (a photo of the tree, the tree?s water cycle, foliage cycle, the sound
of
its leaves rustling, etc.) -- within a certain type of understanding
(everyday,
scientific, etc.)>>
The digital casting of Being allows us to _see_ the tree presenting itself
_only_ under the pre-misses of digitization. Digitization is an ontological
pre-condition of the _truth_ of the tree i.e. of its presentation.
There is still the prevalence of presentation (and announcement) with regard
to the moderne scheme of a subject (consciousness) re-presenting a tree,
but the digital casting of Being gives the _measure_ for what is to be seen
as _being_.
> but, there is not a tree presenting itself, although there is
> a message-structure (_angelos_) also (!) here in the sense
> of a _digital message_ that shows the (now) tree as a digital
> being.
>>The tree first has to present itself to give its data. The data are
collected by
Dasein?s pre-conceived devices which have already fore-seen the data to be
collected. All these data are a kind of writing (inscription, _grammê_)
which
can be read by Dasein in various contexts. The writing points to other
beings,
calls them out into the open for Dasein?s consideration, contemplation or
whatever. <<
yes, this is the kind of (hermeneutical) pre-understanding (similar to the
one
described by H. in BT with regard to the mathematical casting of nature
in modernity.
> and what about, when dasein is being digitized? what is
> being digitized?
>>Dasein is digitized when it provides data of some kind to a device capable
of
receiving it and turning it into binary code. The Da of Dasein withholds
itself
essentially from such giving of itself as data. No amount of data collection
could ever collect the Da, the openness itself within which all kinds of
beings
can present and show themselves. >>
agree
>is there a kind of _digital openness_?
>>There seems at least to be a whole digital dimension which these digital
beings
traverse, and thus an openness which is held open _by_ and _for_ Dasein?s
understanding of digital beings. We can decode the binary code and make
sense of
it, e.g. this digital data is the visual image of that tree over there on
such-and-such a day in the morning. When digital code circulates in its own
peculiar electronic medium, Dasein can make sense of its origin and content,
e.g. an e-mail arriving from Buenos Aries does not cause any perplexity,
although we may have never been there ?in the flesh?. Only the first couple
of
e-mails sent and received seem amazing -- it quickly becomes mundane,
because
the spatial orientation of the digital dimension fits into our general
spatial
orientation in the world. >>
I mean, there is not only a question of what is being digitized (for
instance the visual
image of a tree or different kinds of biological processes etc.), but of the
basic
(ontolotical) casting of Being, that allows all these ontic digital
processes.
In other words _being digital_ is primordially a question of _Being being
digital_
i.e. of the casting (Entwurf) of Being.
>>Must we understand more clearly what pure number has to do with the being
of
beings as they are given today in this digital casting? The mathematical
opening
of beings by the natural sciences initiated in the Cartesian period proved
incredibly powerful in allowing human manipulation of natural beings. Dasein
learning to read digital code extends and opens up new possibilities of
manipulation, but not just that. >>
agree
>>The digital casting of being relies on Dasein
as data reader to make sense of data. Dasein can read the imprint made by
data,
interpret it, because it is in the openness of its Da. Human beings are
essentially _gatherers_, not of nuts and berries, etc., but of data, of what
beings reveal and give of themselves in presenting themselves in the open.
The
data gathered are brought to a stand in Dasein?s understanding. As gatherer
and
collector, Dasein is also the originary _reader_, the Leser.
As you know, German _lesen_ has the same IE root as Greek _legein_. So it
would almost seem as if
Dasein, in gathering all the data from the digital devices which it has set
in
motion, is in a way very close to its deepest essential determination as a
sort
of _logon echon_. The digital casting of being inundates us with messages
from
beings that challenge us to read them (in an endless dis-course, Durchlauf).
Even though multiple programs may process data, ultimately the output has to
be
read and understood in some sense by Dasein. >>
I am not sure if _gathering_ is enough for dealing with this. In some way we
_are_ of the same kind as the way things _are_ (i.e. presenting themselves).
Understanding is too _weak_ for expressing the kind of _casting_
possibilitating
the encounter. Probably would _encountering_ be a better ex-planation of
this
process of mutually giving and receiving, or offering and surpassing the way
the receiver takes what is being offered according to its own casting
(_omnia quod
recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur_).
so, there is a a process of announcing and encountering and later of of
_lesen_
or gathering.
<<In being caught up in the circulation of digital messages and called on
the read
them, Dasein reveals itself to be the collector and lector. Perhaps this is
an
aspect of the ?flash of propriation? (_Aufblitzen des Ereignisses_) as the
positive to the negative of the set-up? We would have to think about what is
going on in our immersion amidst all this endless circulation of beings,
both
digital and non-digital. >>
circulation is, I think, a process that pre-supposes the bringing onself
into the
circle (or being already there, that not always announcing onself, or being
able
to be accepted by the other)
<<It?s a bit like Marx?s dictum: ?Sie wissen es nicht, aber sie tun es.?
(?They do
not know it, but they do it.? Capital Vol. 1 Chap. 1) with respect to
commodity
fetishism. The digital beings remain ?fetishized? as long as we cannot
understand them _as_ a casting of being in its openness. Everything depends
on
the little word _as_. <<
yes, there is a kind of not being aware of what is going on, in the sense
that
we take for granted the _wonder of all wonders_ that there is announcement
not only that things are, but there there is the _is_ i.e. ourselves, which
is
probably much more than we dare to suspect. this sounds a little bit
ex-centric
but it is probably extremely unpathetic.
cheers
rafael
Cheers,
Michael
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ artefact@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
