Re: interpretation all the way down: throwing light on...

Michael Eldred wrote:

>Something understood is laid out (aus-gelegt) explicitly as something.
>Interpretation resides in the as that makes understanding explicit.
>
>Daniel's example is:
> 'I see a light bulb.'  And he asks: Where is the interpretation?
>You say it's in the 'as'. I think you're right.
>
>I walk into the room, switch the light on (because it's dark and I am,
>as you say, always already in the world). Do I see the light bulb
>(sensorily)? Probably not. But I do understand (implicitly) a light
>switch and its connection with the light bulb (and thus always already
>see the light bulb by the light of understanding). If the light doesn't
>go on, I see the light bulb. I don't see it primarily with my physical
>eyes but I see it in my attention being drawn to it: Either the switch
>is broken, the light bulb is broken or the power is cut off. The light
>bulb is embedded in an always already understood interconnection of
>things that are good-for... (something or other in daily life). The
>non-functioning makes the connection suddenly visible, makes it stand
>out.
>
>Let's go back to the simple example:  'I see a light bulb.'
>It's not so simple after all:
>I see.
>I see something.
>I see something _as_ something.
>I see something _as_ a light bulb.
>I say expressly (logos) "This is a light bulb."

>I can only see something because it shows itself to me _as_ something.
>That which presents itself to me _as_ something moreover shows itself to
>me _as_ a light bulb, understood within a context of things useful for
>daily life. This something can also disclose itself as (be laid out as)
>a glass sphere with a filament in it.
>If I am inspecting the light bulb because the light did not go on, then
>I am interested in seeing whether the filament is broken. I only look
>for a broken filament because I already understand what a light bulb is
>and how it functions. So my seeing and looking depends on having always
>already understood the light bulb in a definite interconnection.
>Perceptual, sensuous seeing is always already (guided by) an
>understanding.

Exactly. Now, supposing one walked into a 21st century museum of 20th
century items and one 'saw' just such a light bulb then one would not so
much prehend the light bulb_as_a_lightbulb but as_a_20th century invention
(say): it would be prehended as a symbol or sign (of the 20th century or
electricity or progress, say) and not some thing to turn on in a nexus of
interrelationships of beings-at-hand in order to throw light on a room or
whatever. Equally with the 'scientific' (metaphysical) mode of prehension,
the light bulb might present it self (throw itself) as an ob-ject of
in-vest-igation, as a black box even, as some thing other than a light bulb
qua light bulb. Surely the business of seeing X_as_not-X (as some thing
else or other) is grounded in the seeing of X_as_X and not the other way
round.... any thoughts?

M the P

Michael Pennamacoor
SandwichDeSign
38 Sandown Lees
Sandwich
Kent CT13 9NZ
tel: 01304-617626
email: pennamacoor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx




     --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---