1
   

Dasein: on being "thrown" into the world

 
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 08:46 am
Bruce Wilshire:

"...the world is not meaningful on the same level as are events merely in the world. The latter events, of whatever sort, presuppose the utterly fundamential sense of the world in which they occur. As infants and then a tofddlers growing up we simply absorb unwittingly, by osmosis as it were, the sense of the world that the authoriites all around us have themselves brought with them to every situation. That is, we absorb our culture, and its taken-for-granted background sense sense of world, undleliberately.

"We do this by what I call memtic engulfment: undeliberate immitation of others. Inexorable, our culture structures our neural, muscular and glandular systems, our reality as minding organisms. John Dewey is right: our minding is our adapting, our coping on a gut level with the world around us, and only the smallest fraction of this coping ever gets into our consciousneess, let alone into the focus of that."


Heidegger called this Dasein---our being "thrown" into a world that is already prefabricated into an existential Reality. As children we are all indoctrinated to absorb this conventional wisdom. In fact, by the time we imagine ourselves to be "autonomous adults" few of us will be consciously aware of just how manufactured our sense of "what the world is" actual has become. The "self" is, by and large, an existential illusion. It is analogous to a patchwork quilt in which one set of crcumstantial contexts just happens to overlap another set---not out of necessity...or because this is the most Rational or Logical manner in which to integrate them; but simply because, fortuitously, we were born in this historical era and not that one...into this culture and not that one....into this family and community and not that one.

Human identity is, when push comes to shove, a self-perpetuating con job. In other words, we delude ourselves into imagining the way we see the world around us is derived from a detached and objective assessment of The Way Things Really Are. But so much of the way things really were is integrated into this perception there is no realistic way we can assess the world around us except as one who has been indoctrinated for years to view it in one way rather than another.

The most intriguing question than becomes one in which we ponder what this all means for those who do become self-conscious of their own acculturation. Once you become more or less fully aware of how your sense of self has been fabricated as Dasein how can you make a more honest assessment of what is truly real and what you have only been brainwashed all your life by others to believe is real?

RP
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,163 • Replies: 28
No top replies

 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 09:47 am
Randall, could you give us some examples of things you think we are brainwashed to believe are real, but aren't?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 11:29 am
truth
Terry, you miss Randal's (and Hiedegger's and anthropology's) point. It's not a question that our enculturated world views are inherently false, only that they are not absolutely true (THAT is the illusion), that they are artifacts of the cultural, historical condition into which we have been "thrown." The artificiality of our world view is something that Fresco, Twyvel and I have been emphasizing in a number of threads.
The existentialists also note that while we are born into a prefabricated world and enculturated (during our helpless formative years) to believe its structure is just as much "given" as are the trees in a forest, we DO in fact alter them, challenge them, and invent new structures, depending on our degree of emancipation from our cultures. Cultures are necessary but when not critically reflected upon (as do some social scientists, philosophers and artists) we function as naive automatons. Existentialists insist that we have the freedom to define ourselves to some extent. Man is born in cultural chains, but he can, given motivation and educational opportunity, liberate himself--or at least refashion his chains--to some extent.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 12:00 pm
Randal

This is exactly the question that Krishnamurti addresses. However, the "secret" according to K is not to "pursue truth" because all such (and other) striving is self defeating, but to observe "striving" and "becoming" and to be aware of their fraudulant nature.
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 12:16 pm
this Randall, is what life is largely 'about';

you begin with a huge package of culturally, preconceived 'notions', and one by one, you intellectually deconstruct them to produce (hopefully before you expire) your own (equally deluded) version of existence; which you generously pass on to your children.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 12:41 pm
JLN, you are deluding yourself if you think that I missed the point here, or the artificiality of any world view including the ones you, Fresco and twyvel drone on endlessly about.

Now, if you don't mind, I would like to know what sort of things Randall thinks we have been brainwashed to believe.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 12:43 pm
BoGoWo, with any luck, I only passed on enough culturally-preconceived notions to allow my children to thrive until they are ready to construct their own version of reality. Neither of them would be happy with mine. Smile
0 Replies
 
visavis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 01:10 pm
sort of how some denounce others ideas and feel it necessary to talk rather than listen, they are indoctrinated by themselves that their ideas are important. Remember terry (and many other people in the world) you can only learn by input, ones own ideas cannot teach oneself anything.
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 01:18 pm
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 03:06 pm
truth
Fresco, BoGoWo, and Twyvel Very Happy
Terry, EXCUUUUSE ME! I guess I should have said that my interpretation of Randal differs from yours in that ....
And then I should have added the qualification that I was presuming to understand what your interpretation was....
Would this have precluded your ego flare up?
0 Replies
 
Randall Patrick
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 04:15 pm
Terry

<<<Randall, could you give us some examples of things you think we are brainwashed to believe are real, but aren't?>>>

We are indoctrinated to believe, first and foremost, that the manner in which our own particular culture views reality is, in fact, what human reality actually is.

Thus children raised in vastly conflicting and contradictory cultures come to conclude that human truth revolves around vastly conflicting and contradictory things.

I was just watching the video The Emerald Forest, for example. It is a film supposedly based on events that actually happened. Some years ago an American entrepreneur took his family down to the Amazon Rainforest. While out on a job site his young son ventured too far into the forest and was abducted by an indigenous tribe. He was subsequently raised by this community as one of their own. Yet his father tried over and again to find him. And years later he was finally successful. But by then the child was a young man and had been thoroughly indoctrinated to view the world as the aboringinal tribe did. He was now one of them---culturally, emotionally, psychologically. His father, in fact, ended up leaving him behind because he realized this was no longer his son---that he would be like a fish out of water if he took him back and tried to integrate him into a modern culture he had no understanding of at all.

We are the same way. It is just that some of us manage to delude ourselves that they are not. That, in other words, THEY really do know The Truth about what it means to be a human being.

It's a lie, of course. There is no truth in this respect. There are only existential vantage point disguised as Truth.

RP
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 05:12 pm
Terry talks about "world view" as though specific details of "reality" were being advocated:

Krishnamurti 1929

<<(Man's) perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. This content is common to all humanity. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all mankind. So he is not an individual.

Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not choice. It is man's pretense that because he has a choice he is free. Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence and activity.

Thought is time. Thought is born of experience and knowledge which are inseparable from time and the past. Time is the psychological enemy of man. Our action is based on knowledge and therefore time, so man is always a slave to the past. Thought is ever-limited and so we live in constant conflict and struggle. There is no psychological evolution.

When a man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts he will see the division between the thinker and the thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experienced. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then there is only pure observation. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or time. This timeless insight brings about a deep radical transformation of the mind.>>

There is no "world view" being "pushed" here....it is merely an invitation to observe.
0 Replies
 
Sibisis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 03:19 am
reality
the question was posed as what is reality.. but it just described what it was.
It is what we see as the world around us.
if i see the world as what has been behaviorally conditioned to us all then that is reality. the fact that i can see this shows me that the world around us is malleable. so if i can see the flaws in myself then i can change them because of my perception of the world. so then reality is just the outlook we take on it. there is no set reality. that is also why so many people have a hard time describing reality. it is different for each of us. But that is also why it is so similar to the masses; the prescribed view that Society fills out for us.

oh and saying that time is an enemy of man is an illusion. time does not exist. it is a mesurement. there is no past...its just a record and as long as u think that u cant change because of that then u wont....again the world is as we see it if u look at it differently then it will be different.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:08 am
visavis, in your case, I would certainly agree that your own ideas can teach you nothing. Smile
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:10 am
JLN, you are excused, and if you ever again feel an inexplicable urge to presume to (mis)understand my interpretation of someone else's post on the basis of a single request for specific information, that qualification will do quite nicely, thanks. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:20 am
Randall, I have to wonder if that father had unrealistic expectations for his son and whether he might have been more concerned about social stigma than his son's ability to assimilate a new culture and worldview.

Do you known of any specific ways in which the son's (or the father's) view of reality was false and not just a different-but-valid perspective?

Agreed that culture plays a role in how we interpret things such as whether bugs are icky or yummy, bathing is good for you, gods cause thunder, animals have souls, people should be obedient cogs in society or rugged individuals, disease can be cured by drugs or incantations, women are intelligent human beings with full rights or nothing but chattel.

But a lot of who we think we are is based on biology, not culture. The experience of motherhood, warfare, grammatical language, emotions, and sensory perceptions are common to people everywhere.

The brain generates the sense of self from core consciousness and autobiographical memories, so of course the "self" changes over the years as the contents of memory change. The autobiographical memory contains all the absorbed cultural knowledge with which we transform sensory information into "experiences" that are consistent with our belief system. If we assimilate ideas from another culture, we can use them to re-interpret prior experiences and perhaps change our world-view.

Suppose that you decide that everything you once believed is wrong and completely reassess and reconstruct your own reality. How do you know that the assumptions on which you based your new world-view get you any closer to Reality than your old ones? If their brand-new illusions make people happier, perhaps it is best not to examine them too closely. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:21 am
fresco wrote:
Krishnamurti 1929

<<(Man's) perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. This content is common to all humanity. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all mankind. So he is not an individual.


Agreed that much of the content of consciousness is common to all humanity, but there is certainly enough variation to make us individuals in the name we are given that assigns us to a place in the world based on heritage, the physical form and brain that govern how we interact with the world, and the experiences we acquire from living in a particular environment. How can freedom from the very thing that distinguishes us from each other make us unique?

Of what use is observation if there is no one to understand what is observed?
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:24 am
Sibisis, have you ever tried to walk through a rock, or stave off the ravages of old age just by willing time not to pass? Just wondering whether your reality is any more malleable than mine. :wink:
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:22 am
Terry,

The answer to your question lies in Zen concept of "attachment". If you are attached to your superficial individual differences you are not "free" except "free to suffer the consequences".

And indeed "observation" is always "purpose related". The recognition of this and the nature of the "purpose" (prediction and control) is a type of freedom.
0 Replies
 
visavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 07:19 am
Terry wrote:
visavis, in your case, I would certainly agree that your own ideas can teach you nothing. Smile


i applaud your lack of wit *clap

anyways - somthing that crossed mah mind about.. just well.. simple parenting. for example: the parents of a friend of mine are well.. hippipes/yippies however you want to describe them but they are extreamly open to things other than the 'mainstream' and how they raised their son is that each year they would introduce him and involve him with a different religion/culture. they of course waited till he was at the 'sponge' ages and took him to mosque and celebrated Islamic traditions for a year then the next year took him to temple and celebrated and practiced jewish culture and then christian and variations therein. Just curious how you all would analyze this sort of 'up bringing'

btw I view it as a rather.. bad idea.. because that caused great confusion in his life and he has issues because of it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
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
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Dasein: on being "thrown" into the world
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 03:05:01