RE: Philosophy of Being

Hi Henry, just thought I would say "Hi". I find myself struggling with life
to the detriment of persuing my interests on the Heidegger List. But I still
read the goings on and enjoy your wonderful sense of humor. One of these
days I'll be out on the UNC side of the world. Would love to stop in and see
what sort of face belongs to these words.

I still have trouble placing (positioning) what I know of Heidegger.
Certainly, Heir Heidegger would have been quick to say (and did, I guess,
many times over) that his thinking should be much more than an abstraction
of the type we generally associate with the hyper-rational. But then the
psychologist in me comes along looking for a perspective that provides some
sort of shelter for a soul squashed by the enframming pressures of the
world.

I sometimes think that our conversations about Interpretation might hold the
key to many doors for me. Interpretation all the way down cannot mean that
nothing counts. Do you know what I mean here? It is easy to suggest in a
flippant manner that the perspective of Interpretation all the way down
amounts to..."therefore, if you have ontic problems, just remember that
everything is only interpretation anyway...so just change your
interpretation".

Anyway, thought I would check in. Hope you are well,

Michael S.



> ----------
> From: 	henry sholar[SMTP:hwsholar@xxxxxxxx]
> Reply To: 	heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: 	Sunday, September 05, 1999 11:32 AM
> To: 	heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 	Re: Philosophy of Being
> 
> 
> i have a difficulty hearing 
> from secondary sources their concerns about 
>  the contamination of (other) secondary sources.
> 
> on the base level of logic it comes across 
> as the old "all cretans are liars" conundrum.  
> 
> on the intentional level 
> it stands with an admirable 
> intellectual integrity, esp.
> given the apologetic 
> "authoritarianism" that 
> is typical of michael e.
> 
> on the cultish level, though, it is a 
> little too much dogma to cope 
> with in its self-canceling determinations. 
> too metaphysical a principle
> 
> suffice --it seems to me to say-- 
> that reading heidegger's words is 
> better than reading someone else's 
> words about heidegger if one's goal 
> is to understand heidegger.
> 
> some of us, though, find ways into 
> heidegger's words through the words 
> of others about his words 
> 
> that works.  
> 
> Michael E leads people to 
> understanding heidegger, 
> as does dreyfus, and others.
> 
> when it is always already 
> interpretation all the way down, 
> the differentiation of primary 
> and secondary sources, the 
> deferentiation of younger 
> and older interpreters, 
> the deferentiation of 
> academics and non-academics 
> all of that becomes irrelevent
> 
> the agreement that Rene and Michael E 
> have about what is philos and what 
> is non-philos goes beyond me and too
> seems a cultishly cobbled concept
> 
> to paraphrase:
> 
>   "to the words themselves!"
> 
> kindest regards,
> as ever,
> hen
> ----------------------
> 
> hwsholar@xxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> 


     --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---