0
   

BEING AND TIME IN ‘62

 
 
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2010 02:12 am
In his book Being and Time1 (1962) Martin Heidegger discusses “The Being of the Entities Encountered in the Environment.” He describes the dynamics surrounding our relationship to tools in our environment as we encounter them in our everyday experience. He notes that in our everyday dealings we encounter equipment for writing, sewing, working, transportation, measurement, etc.; and that at the most fundamental level equipment is “something in-order-to”. In this “in-order-to” structure resides an assignment or reference of something to some-thing else within a referential whole. The oft-quoted example he gives is the use of a hammer for hammering. In discussing this example Heidegger points out the extent to which “putting-to-use” “in-order-to”, constitutes the type of being that equipment possesses as a “readiness-to-hand.” And furthermore, that the more one grabs hold of the hammer and puts it to use, “the more primordial does our relationship to it become.”1

Hubert Dreyfus in his commentary on Being and Time2 notes that: “When we are using equipment, it has a tendency to “disappear”. We are not aware of it as having any characteristics at all.” In what Dreyfus calls absorbed coping, the awareness of equipment recedes into transparency as one becomes absorbed in the task at hand with the skilful implementation and smooth functioning of that equipment.

Heidegger goes on to point out that, when equipment breaks-down or is somehow found to be unusable, it is at this precise moment when the equipment in relation to the entire situation is made conspicuous. We are made aware of our relationship to the equipment and its relationship to the referential whole, an awareness that had receded into the back-ground in the skilful implementation and smooth running of the equipment. “When equipment cannot be used, this implies that the constitutive assignment of the “in-order-to” to a “towards-this” has been disturbed,” he writes,” and “when an assignment has been disturbed-- when something is unusable for some purpose--then the assignment becomes explicit.” Dreyfus, in further characterizing this process, writes: “Temporary breakdown, where something blocks ongoing activity, necessitates a shift into a mode in which what was previously transparent becomes explicitly manifest. Deprived of access to what we normally count on, we act deliberately, paying attention to what we are doing.”2 –Ron Price with thanks to 1Martin Heidegger, Time and Being, trans. John Macquarie and Edward Robinson, SCM Press, 1962(1927); and 1Hubert Dreyfus, Being-in-the-world: A Commentary on Hedger’s Being and Time, Division 1, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.

I was just about to begin my study
of philosophy, Martin, when your
book was finally translated. But I
was fully occupied with studies in
other areas—just trying to survive
and get that BA & hopefully avoid
all those menial…seemingly trivial
jobs that had occupied me…..every
summer beginning twix '57 and '60.

I was not very handy with the tools
of my environment, Martin….but I
did encounter the Baha’i Faith and
in ’62 went travelling-pioneering in
the hope that others might find that
it was a tool to use in their own lives.

Ron Price
23 August 2010



  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,802 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2010 03:14 am
@RonPrice,
I suggest you listen to Dreyfus's lectures on "Being on Time". They are on podcast. Try googling "Berkeley, podcasts, Heidegger"
RonPrice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2010 04:05 am
@fresco,
Thanks, fresco; I'll give them a shot.-Ron Price, Tasmania
0 Replies
 
jgweed
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2010 07:43 am
I am not sure if there is a question here.
One finds a parallel situation in the sense that , as Aristotle noted, philosophy begins in "wonder" or "confusion." for it is often only when something intrudes itself as being "out of place" or "broken" or "unusual-in-the-normal-course-of-events" that we pay attention to it; this need for inspection or contemplation may even be aroused by another philosopher's different perspective when it triggers the thinking that thinking is needed as was the case of Kant's awakening from his "dogmatic slumber" upon reading Hume.

Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2010 08:03 am
Technology is a way of extending our capabilities. The way that equipment disappears from our view shows up in how we say: Bill plowed the field. Not unless we examine the question: how? do we notice that Bill and the tractor are two separate things.

All technology is a kind of magical. It's more obvious with telephones and televisions because we totally ignore the illusion.... that's not your friend you hear... it's a computer generated sound. But in a way even a ball-point pen or tractor is part of an illusion... it gives us an inflated conception of our own capabilities...

Looking at it phenomenologically, though... what illusion? Calling it an illusion is saying that there's another viewpoint that is more valid. It's fundamental to science to say that I am something separate from the world I know. This world existed without me and will again when I'm gone.

Noticing what happens when equipment breaks down shows that we go back and forth between two perspectives. We can call one an illusion and the other real... or just notice that they're both aspects of perception.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Aug, 2010 08:32 am
@RonPrice,
Heidegger fan here to add that his observation applies to all cybernetic systems - machines or men. Do you know the name of the person to call if your building gets a plumbing problem? If you don't, the system works efficiently so the person is "transparent" to you - might as well not exist.
0 Replies
 
RonPrice
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2010 07:55 am
Thanks for your thoughtful responses, folks. Sadly, I must go to bed. I will try and get back here---but don't hold your breaths.-Ron
0 Replies
 
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2010 05:07 pm
Ron;

Reporting on what Heidegger says is not philosophizing and as you know from reading Heidegger he says "Philosophy doesn't exist. There is only philosophizing. I suggest that you and anybody else who is following this thread read my latest blog, "A Message to Michael" at http://able2know.org/topic/163653-1

I pomise that it will give you a different perspective on Heidegger.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2010 05:21 pm
in december of 1962 i became a being in time
0 Replies
 
RonPrice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2010 05:47 pm
Thanks, Dasein and djjd62. I will have to give Heidegger much more work to understand what he is saying. Your input and advice is appreciated.-Ron in Tasmania
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2010 06:00 pm
@jgweed,
jgweed wrote:

philosophy begins in "wonder" or "confusion." for it is often only when something intrudes itself as being "out of place" or "broken" or "unusual-in-the-normal-course-of-events" that we pay attention to it;

I question the accuracy of what Aristotle noted. I find that 'wonder' and 'confusion' are at best, distant cousins. They are related but they live far apart from each other. 'Confusion' does show up "when something intrudes itself as being "out of place' or "broken". Its a question of what is "out-of-place" or "broken". I have found that when 'Be-ing' experiences confusion it does so when who you're Be-ing gets confronted by another possibility of Be-ing. Hence con-fusion, "that which argues against the possibility of you Be-ing one with your 'self'".

Let me give you an example of what I mean. Recently I was posting with another person who mentioned the concept "paradigm construction". Now, "paradigm construction" is a wonderful concept (its kind of like the 'afterlife'). We could compare our 'thoughts' about it. We would agree on some and disagree on others. We could gather a crowd of people and have a discussion on "paradigm construction" and if need be we could get bigger and bigger rooms as more people joined the discussion, we could even take a vote on the opinions and then use them to convince people to agree with us. You get the point. However, until an actual paradigm gets constructed its all empty chatter and meaningless. What do you need to know to produce an actual paradigm? Until you can actually make a 'paradigm' isn't it all bullshit?

What if somebody, let's say, from another planet, came along and told you that you are the paradigm and that by uncovering who you are you create a shift in that paradigm and that you can shift that paradigm any time you want. All you have to do is stop representing your 'self' as a thing. When you change your conversation, you 'shift' the paradigm that you are and you 'transform' your view of the 'world', the 'they', and who you are.

As you de-construct the 'world' and disentangle your 'self' from the measurabilty and definability of it, you come to a point where you can no longer prove the existence of your 'self' by using the standards of the 'world'. When you come face-to-face with the "possibility of the impossibility of your existence" who you've been Be-ing dies so that you can be your 'self'. You uncover/discover that anything is possible and that you are no longer a slave to proving your existence. In Be-ing you 'anticipate resolving' 'death' so that you can be your 'self'. This is what Heidegger means when he speaks about 'running towards death' and 'anticipatory resoluteness'. This is the essence of human freedom. In Be-ing you answer the question "Who am I?"

Once you 'transform' your view of the 'world' and the 'they', confusion becomes 'fusion' and you live in 'wonder'. Then everything is 'wonder-full' because you are full of wonder.

This is what is called 'transformation'.

Read "A Message to Michael" at http://able2know.org/topic/163653-1
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2010 06:12 pm
@RonPrice,
Ron;

Did you read "A Message to Michael"? I also suggest you read the post I just made in this thread to jgweed. I wish you all the best. I'm curious, do you have Skype installed on your computer there in Tasmania?
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2010 08:04 pm
@Dasein,
Dasein wrote:

jgweed wrote:

philosophy begins in "wonder" or "confusion." for it is often only when something intrudes itself as being "out of place" or "broken" or "unusual-in-the-normal-course-of-events" that we pay attention to it;

I question the accuracy of what Aristotle noted.

You are very fortunate in not being enrolled - time intervening forbids it - in any class taught by Heidegger. He wasn't only the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, he was also one of its greatest classicists, as fluent in Latin and Greek as he was in any of the modern languages. He would have thrown you out unceremoniously (of course politely) for writing all those paragraphs without once checking the original text - do you even know how to find it, or read it, once found? And if not, why are you wasting your time (Zeit!) and ours?
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Nov, 2010 08:39 am
@High Seas,
I suggest you stop wasting your time by reading anything posted by Dasein.

That way you won't have to listen to the incessant chatter in your head, you won't have to respond to my post (and listen to the chatter in your head), and I won't have to fight the urge to respond to you.
0 Replies
 
RonPrice
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2011 09:04 pm
It has been nearly a year since I was last at this thread. I do not have skype. I did teach philosophy at technical colleges and in adult education classes for many years. Many people find philosophy a frustrating discipline and this thread is an illustration of some of the problems assoicated with discussion of aspects of the subject. I now have a website and invite readers to the philosophy aspects of it: http://www.ronpriceepoch.com/ -Ron
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2011 04:32 pm
@Arjuna,
I agree that technology, as an aspect of our ordinary existence is tacitly perceived as a kind of ordinary--taken for granted--magic. Science (the truth-seeking effort), on the other hand--as long as we don't confuse it with "mere" engineering--is a kind of extraordinary human effort. Its application might seem magical but its production is the accomplishment of sheer human effort).
I grant that science does generally contribute to the illusion that the world exists apart from us. But the world does not exist entirely apart from you and me. Even though there is truth in your acknowledgement that the world existed before you (lower case "y") existed and will continue after you cease to exist, Ultimate Reality exists because it is made up of an infinity of (Ultimate) Yous (upper case "Y") and will continue to exist in the eternal You. Please don't ask me to explain.
RonPrice
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Apr, 2012 07:17 am
@JLNobody,
Belated thanks for your post, JLNobody. It was been nearly 6 months since I was last here and I think I'll let "Being and Time in '62" die a natural death. Although Heidegger wrote this work quickly, and despite the fact that he never completed the project which he outlined in the introduction, it remains his most important work and has profoundly influenced 20th-century philosophy, particularly existentialism, hermeneutics and deconstruction. But it's my bedtime.-Ron
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » BEING AND TIME IN ‘62
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/06/2020 at 08:21:14