THIS ELECTION IS A REFERENDUM ON THE INCUMBENT. FULL STOP. — 180 Proof

My takeaway from the exchange in this thread is that the left really cannot help but fracture itself with ideological arguments. — Echarmion

Neither is the right, but they seem to do a better job of putting aside differences to access the power of unity. — frank

Voting for Biden is such an obvious decision, it's something the Left (or what I call the Left, the activists who are in tune with the reality of the ground) should talk about for 10 minutes and then shut the hell up and spend the rest of the year on other politics (unless you live in a swing state and want to increase turn out or something). — Saphsin

As soon as politics revolves around personalities and individuals, it's over. — StreetlightX

And Biden? Sure, vote for him. It would be a deeply shameful act — StreetlightX

personally my vote goes to a Harris Administration. — Kevin

All of this makes sense enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vsrm1J-QzQ

Sorry, it's not that "aletheia" “may be translated” as "truth". Heidegger's very concept of truth is "not covered" or "uncovered" and is opposed to the false or hidden. You can see this in the underlined words (by me) of Heidegger himself. — David Mo

All of which agree entirely with what I'm saying.

When I say "may be translated," I mean exactly that. "Unconcealment" is another way, which Heidegger prefers. Not because "truth" isn't accurate in translation, but because the association "truth" has as "correct assertion" doesn't capture the Greek sense of aletheia.

No juggling. In fact, very straightforward. It takes juggling not to see it.

Therefore, when he says that the concealment of Being begins with Plato and Aristotle he is saying that the metaphysical path that follows them is wrong, inadequate, incorrect or whatever you want to say. These are similar words to express the same idea of failure. — David Mo

No, they aren't. To take "wrong" as being "incorrect" is absurd, and this is not what he says. Ever.

If to be "hidden" is to be "wrong," that's your own business.

"Inadequate" may be fine, as long as it means that their thinking was "privative," leaving out and concealing some aspects of the world. Doesn't make them "incorrect" any more than science is "incorrect."

He speaks of Aristotle or Kant with respect in some relevant points. — David Mo

In every point. He has nothing but respect for these men. If you've missed this, then I suggest reading Being and Time rather than searching for words and phrases piecemeal, as you've been doing. Allows one to understand the context.

Heidegger did not know much about contemporary physics. — David Mo

Oh, good to know. :roll:

Of course, some similarities can be established between modern science and Aristotle. But not the concept or the structure of science. This is one of Heidegger's false assumptions. — David Mo

You don't know what Heidegger assumes, because you don't understand Heidegger.

The talk about science was my own, not Heidegger's. I used it as an example, which you unsurprisingly don't understand.

No one is claiming modern science directly rests on Aristotle's philosophy.

An increase in the greenhouse effect isn't a danger to human life (as far as scientists know). — frank

You don't know what you're talking about.

What should we do until then? There isn't a whole lot the average individual can do to influence things one way or another. If you want to position yourself in a safer place, move away from the coast and head north. Otherwise, enjoy life to the max. Life is short. — frank

Your entire take on this is almost nauseating.

Yes, sit back and do nothing. Enjoy life. Nothing else to see here. You'll certainly be admired by future generations.

In the meantime, I'll stick with what climatologists say over an internet poster.

If you had not mutilated the phrase you would have realized that the ordinary interpretation is "in" Aristotle already. — David Mo

They're not the same. This was my point, which you tried, and failed, to show was incorrect with that passage.

The ordinary way of understanding time (1) is made explicit in Aristotle's interpretation (2). That's not a "mutilation," that's the passage itself.

I call your attention, in case you get lost in trtanslation :joke: , to the fact that the accusation against Aristotle is not banal, it is of "concealment". — David Mo

Concealment does not mean "wrong." If aletheia means un-concealment, and this often gets translated as "truth," then this is what was meant by "truth" to the early Greeks. Later on, truth comes to mean "correct assertion," and "wrong" (as "incorrect") becomes its opposite. That does not mean "concealed," in Heidegger or in the Greeks, means "wrong" in the sense of incorrect or in any other sense. Being "concealed" does not mean "wrong" in any way. It simply means it's hidden. This is a mistake you continually make.

Is viewing things as present-at-hand "wrong"?

Of course not.
— Xtrix
It depends on the use you want to make of it. — David Mo

The use is very clear in Heidegger. To view things as present-at-hand is to naturally conceal the ready-to-hand aspects, bringing other aspects to the fore. "Wrong" plays no role whatsoever.

But when the ontology claims to be based on them, they are a serious impediment. — David Mo

Sure, it's an impediment to seeing what gets left out, to what gets hidden, etc. Very true.

Such procedures are facilitated by the unexpressed but ontologically dogmatic guiding thesis that what is (in other words, anything so factual as the call) must be present-at-hand, and that what does not let
itself be Objectively demonstrated as present-at-hand, just is not at all. (B&T: 275/320)
Is it not clear for you? — David Mo

Very clear.

I don't see this in Heidegger and he's given me no reason to. I think a claim like "Aristotle is wrong" is so childish I'd be embarrassed to say it.
— Xtrix

Well, I have already given you a good number of quotations in which Heidegger explains the error that Aristotle begins and continues throughout metaphysics. — David Mo

It's not an error, and it's not wrong. Those terms have no relevance whatsoever. What happens in Aristotle is that the original notion of being as "phusis" (unconcealed sway), while still "in" Aristotle, becomes even more concealed (as "ousia"), and sets the stage for getting solidified into self-evidence. Ditto with time. Thus, it makes it much harder for later philosophers, who take over Aristotle's position, to question "being" or "time" -- they become concealed, "closed off." Heidegger wants to re-awaken the questioning of the early Greeks.

To use words like "wrong" or "error" is, at best, very misleading. And very presumptuous. It's something I'd expect from a first year undergraduate: "Heidegger claims that all Western thinkers, including Aristotle, are completely wrong."

The words matter.

What seems childish to me is that you pretend to seek how to understand the world and its history and do not want to accept that there are explanations that are correct and others that are incorrect. — David Mo

Correct or incorrect have to be defined in a context before this makes any sense. In the sciences, I think it's very sensible to talk this way. I think some propositions and theories turn out to be wrong in many ways, or even completely so. If history teaches us anything, it's that we're almost certainly wrong about many things right now, given our goals and purposes. I don't pretend otherwise.

Is there no true or false? Anything goes? — David Mo

In logic, in mathematics, in the sciences, in ethics, and in everyday life -- yes of course there's true and false. But always within a context. If your goal is to lose weight, then eating apple pie everyday is "wrong," etc. We don't define "true" or "false" in a vacuum.

But none of this applies to Heidegger's analysis. If it did, it would essentially mean that science is "wrong," since science's "founding fathers" held assumptions and beliefs which were rooted in Aristotelian philosophy and emphasize the present-at-hand objectification of nature. If you really want to interpret it this way, again I say: you're welcome to. But I don't go along with it, and think it's childish.

One fundamental question you must answer: What does "wrong" mean to you? If you don't answer, I'm afraid this conversation is definitely blocked. — David Mo

"Wrong" either means incorrect or morally "bad." That's the ordinary usage. We'll discount the latter, because we're not discussing morality. The former refers to logic, in the sense of assertions and propositions and laws of thought. All that is perfectly fine with me. (And Heidegger.)

They just happen not to apply to Heidegger's analysis of the Greeks, as you claim they do.

This task as a whole requires that the conception of time thus obtained shall be ditinguished from the way in which it is ordinarily understood. This ordinary way of understanding it has become explicit in an interpretation precipitated in the traditional concept of time, which has persisted from

You have trouble reading, I think. That's fine. But ask yourself: what is it that has become explicit in an Aristotle's interpretation?

Answer: The ordinary conception. They're not the same. Related, but not the same.

lead irremediably and directly to error means to be wrong ( defective, faulty, flawed, inadequate, insufficient, lacking and so). Is it not? — David Mo

Yes, but as I've grown tired of saying: translations of terms is a different topic, and they're often wrong (according too Heidegger). You're stuck in confusing this with a sweeping generalization of all Western thought, which is based on "presence."

Is viewing things as present-at-hand "wrong"?

Of course not.

that of Aristotle. No. It is about truth versus error. — David Mo

Well at least this is consistent with your view that Heidegger has a messiah complex. He'd have to be like that to make such a claim - I.e., that he has the "truth" (as "correct") and Aristotle is "wrong" (incorrect). By all means interpret it that way - no surprise, since you started with that assumption. You see what you hope to see.

I don't see this in Heidegger and he's given me no reason to. I think a claim like "Aristotle is wrong" is so childish I'd be embarrassed to say it. I don't care about right and wrong, I'm interested in understanding the world and its history. Perhaps Aristotle and the Greeks missed certain things. Perhaps Galileo and Newton did. Perhaps everyone has. No doubt we have (and are) missing plenty of things right now, and 99% what we believe right now will turn out to be misguided, limited, etc.

The only thing interesting to look at is what we do with our time and lives. We can't understand that fully if we hold on to dogmas. Heidegger, like Aristotle and Nietzsche (and perhaps even Marx), etc., was someone who was able to look at everything and question it. Some "things" remain concealed even to Heidegger, as they did for Aristotle. This is why he constantly emphasizes questioning -- hardly egotistical. This is why he's saying there is probably a more fundamental "horizon" that is yet to be discovered, and why he talks endlessly about "openness" and "resoluteness."

Or we can take the attitude that Heidegger views himself as being "right" while Aristotle is "wrong," much like modern scientists do about the Greeks.

Civilization may be doomed to collapse (though we truly don't know if it will). Humanity isn't doomed. — frank

Humans can't survive if the earth becomes like Venus.

:kiss:

:gasp: How edgy.

You're truly the Trump of the forum.

Yeah, because your solution - doing nothing, while complaining like a teen - is the "real" solution.

Stick to Twitter. ;)

Indeed.

Adults are talking. Quiet.

Ah sleeping. About as much good as expecting Biden to do shit I guess. — StreetlightX

We should all do what you do: write like an angsty teenager on a philosophy forum. I.e., nothing.

Dime a dozen. :yawn:

No, I don't care if Trump suffers. I prefer it if others didn't suffer.

:yawn:

I'm not suggesting killing anyone.

You've demonstrated, over and over again, that you really don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Use your super-edgy, adolescent cynicism on someone else. Or better yet, keep your mouth shut.

To 'give up' on Biden and his cronies is not to 'give up', unless your horizon of action is as narrow as a prick. — StreetlightX

Yes, it is giving up. No matter how much I dislike Biden, if we don't continue to push for legislation, we're guaranteeing nothing happens. This is true for any administration.

It's an easy position to take - this way we can look superior from behind our computers while doing no work, like most political hobbyists. You're welcome to it.

Heidegger explicitly says that the ordinary interpretation of time derived from Aristotle does not go beyond the ontic level. — David Mo

No, he doesn't. The ordinary conception of time and Aristotle's interpretation of time are two different things. It is not "derived" from Aristotle.

Almost everything that comes out of your mouth (or keyboard) needs correction. It's boring. Stop talking and start listening.

How do you deal with this "error"? — David Mo

:yawn:

But I don’t actually think he ought to suffer or die, because nobody ought to. — Pfhorrest

I have to say, I'm more in favor of him dying. I don't care whether he suffers. Sounds terrible, yes, but from my point of view it would (possibly) benefit the future of the human species. I feel the same way about Americans who continually vote for him - their dying off is a good thing in general.

The reason we should drop talk of "doom" is that it isn't based on science. When that's the primary message coming from climate change acceptors, it undermines their cause. The climate is changing. We will change with it. — frank

Compete nonsense. You haven't been paying attention. And it's exactly this kind of attitude which will accelerate the problem. True, maybe some kind of human existence can survive...is that an argument?

And yes, the US is the world leader. What it does matters enormously on the world stage. That includes climate change.

Yes indeed. Well said.

Biden's corporate trash and the idea he and his party might stand as any kind of bulwark against climate change is wishful thinking in the extreme. — StreetlightX

I don't think it's probable that anything necessary (revolutionary) gets passed, but we have to try to push them to. If we give up, it guarantees nothing gets done.

Doomed? How? — frank

In countless ways, but climate change being the major one.

The same GND of which Biden explicitly said "is not his plan" and which he "does not support" just 3 days ago? — StreetlightX

True, but it's ambitious enough and influenced by the GND.

Doomed it is, then. — StreetlightX

Probably. But even passing Green New Deal legislation is something. Whether they abolish the filibuster, pack the court, etc., who knows -- but I hope they do.

Ginsberg dies, tax returns are finally found, debate is a debacle, and now Trump gets Covid -- all while a pandemic rages, wildfires consume California, Argentina, and even the Arctic, and there's still loads of civil unrest. We're one month away from even a glimmer of hope, but it may already be too late for some of these issues.

If rationality prevails, one of the biggest concerns is that 45% or so of the population who support Trump will still be with us, as will the virus and climate change. But equally important: so will conspiracy theories and the rapid spread of general misinformation.

Not only do the Democrats need to win, and win big, but once they're in office they'd better very quickly start passing New Deal-level reforms, or we're essentially doomed.

Yes, I do wish to remain ignorant of your obnoxious, random rantings about something you don't understand. Now please get off my thread.

Yes, you are ignorant. Now please go away.

If we interpret "time" as something present-at-hand, as Aristotle did, it doesn't mean it's wrong, it means it's "privative" -- it's leaving something out.
— Xtrix
What is left out is the level of ontology, Being — David Mo

What's left out is a more phenomenological way of treating time.

If you want to say that it is not because this tradition is wrong, but because it is insufficient, this is a simple play on words. — David Mo

It's not a play on words. It's Heidegger's words.

Because that insufficiency is primordial, according to Heidegger, and prevents traditional metaphysics from solving the basic problem on which all others depend: the question of Being - and of Dasein, consequently. — David Mo

It prevents metaphysics from asking the question. He never says anything about solving a problem -- to phrase it this way gets us right back into the tradition.

I would like you to give one where Heidegger says that the traditional metaphysics that is maintained at the ontic level (present-to-hand) is "privative" and equivalent to his own phenomenological analysis. — David Mo

It's not equivalent to his phenomenological analysis, so I can't provide a quotation because he never says that. This would also undermine his entire thesis.

I don't understand why you keep posting random, disconnected, Twitter-like assertions. I don't mean to be rude, but so far you have not demonstrated that you have any idea what you're talking about. Please try to be more relevant and more coherent. Otherwise you'll simply be ignored. If you have genuine questions, ask them. If not, your opining about Heidegger is not interesting.

The existence of a correct ("rightly explained") explanation of X implies the existence of a wrong explanation of X in all the languages of the world.. — David Mo

You're not talking about Heidegger. What Heidegger says, repeatedly and explicitly, is that the concepts handed down to us -- many of which have been incorrectly (wrongly) translated (this is especially where you've been confused in the past) -- are based on a particular interpretation of being: the Greek interpretation -- phusis which becomes ousia. This interpretation is not "wrong" in the sense of incorrect, it is simply based on more primordial phenomena which was overlooked and which Heidegger says had to be overlooked through no fault of their own (i.e., the ready-to-hand experiences which are traditionally concealed but can be brought out through phenomenology).

We see this over and over. The present-to-hand mode of inquiry, the theoretical attitude, is part of the human being, but ready-to-hand activity is where we find ourselves in our "average everydayness." It is more basic. If we interpret "time" as something present-at-hand, as Aristotle did, it doesn't mean it's wrong, it means it's "privative" -- it's leaving something out. This is why Heidegger never, not once, says anything like "Aristotle is wrong" or "Descartes is wrong." We've been through this over and over again. The rest of your "evidence" is simply misunderstanding, reading into the text your simplistic notions that you want to see. If you continue to refuse to see that, that's your own issue.

"Rightly explained" has nothing to do with "correct." You're misunderstanding that entire passage. Read "rightly explained" as "properly explained" -- i.e., handled phenomenologically. But if you want to die on that hill, you're welcome to.

Some quotes from Being and Time.

Being must enable us to show that the central problematic of all ontology is rooted in the phenomenon of time, if rightly seen and rightly explained, and we must show how this is the case. (B&T:18/40; Cursive by Heidegger)

As you can see, there is a " right" explanation of time. What is the wrong one? — David Mo

"Rightly seen and rightly explained" refers to the phenomenon of time. There's no "blaming" there and no indication of being "wrong." This is why Heidegger repeatedly says this isn't the case.

As you can see, there is a " right" explanation of time. What is the wrong one?

This task as a whole requires that the conception of time thus obtained shall be ditinguished from the way in which it is ordinarily understood. This ordinary way of understanding it has become explicit in an interpretation precipitated in the traditional concept of time, which has persisted from Aristotle to Bergson and even later. (18/39)

Here it is clear, that which starts from Aristotle. What does it consist of? Here it is:

What is characteristic of the 'time' which is accessible to the ordinary understanding, consists, among other things, precisely in the fact that it is a pure sequence of "nows", without beginning and without end, in which the ecstatical character of primordial temporality has been levelled off. (329/377) — David Mo

I see nothing about being "wrong." What a shocker. We've been through this before, and I've already shown you how you're misinterpreting it.

Aristotle's wrong and Heidegger's right. Put it in your simplistic terms if you need to. This is boring, and apparently the only thing you know how to discuss at length, while ignoring everything else. But have it your way -- I'm not interested.

But that he accuses Aristotle of being the founding father of a concept of time that is incapable of expressing authentic-primoridal temporality, is an item so repeated that only a myopic eye can fail to see it. — David Mo

You have no idea what you're talking about. :yawn:

But in 2020? I will vote for Trump and would do that in any state. — fishfry

What utter buffoonery. I know we're not supposed to "shame" anyone, but at this point hearing something like this is laughable (if it wasn't so tragic).

A vote for Trump, given what we know about the existential threats we face (which he's accelerating), is a vote for death. Pure and simple. There's no way around it, and no argument for it any longer. Besides perhaps an argument in favor of eradicating the human species.

No one is enthusiastic about Biden. This election, the most significant in human history, is not about Biden.

Aristotle said that motion causes time. — Gregory

No, he doesn't. They're related, but there's no causal relation.

Is it possible future Time causes present motion? — Gregory

Again, I really have no idea what this means.

In the meantime, the fact that Heidegger blames the Aristotelian conception of time because it was "theoretical" suggests that he considered his own interpretation free of these theoretical elements. Is that so? — David Mo

Now, be nice, and explain to us one of those reasons the book is full of. One is enough for me. — David Mo

He's not blaming Aristotle. It's not that Aristotle has it "wrong" and he has it "right." He's not saying that. What he says several times is that by the time Aristotle conducts his analysis of time in the Physics, the Greek conception of being as phusis, though still lingering as a conception, becomes tied up with being as "Idea," and thus time itself gets treated as one more present-at-hand "object." Again page 220 of Introduction to Metaphysics is important. Heidegger, on the other hand, is claiming that his description is phenomenological, and discards many of these traditional pre-conceptions. If his thesis stands or falls, it does so on how well he describes the phenomena and, in my view, he does so brilliantly.

Is it possible motion does not go to time, but Time comes from the future to motion. Modern physics has many theories. Philosophy was the start — Gregory

I'm afraid I really don't follow you. Formulating a sensible question has to happen before any answer can be given -- I can't even imagine an answer in this case.

When I read those parts in S und Z I kind of understood it as H was trying to formalize the feeling You get when “thinking of time”. Time as it appears to the dasein. Augenblick and all that. But I am no pro. — Ansiktsburk

I think he gets his interpretation of time (in his formulation, "temporality") from looking at what we do in our "average everdayness," which he talks about as "being-in-the-world"-- as coping with equipment that is ready-to-hand, dealing with (and being influenced by) other human beings, engaging in projects (hammering in order to build a house in order to have shelter, etc), etc., which he will later re-interpret as modes of temporality. It's not that we "think" about it, but that when we do think about it we're "temporalizing" this pre-reflective (primordial) activity. Thus "time" in both the common understanding and in the theories of Aristotle are both derivative (or "privative") from this activity and experience.

When you introspect, follow him in his observations and descriptions, look at the various etymologies and historical contexts of highly influential texts (Aristotle's Physics, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Descartes Principles of Philosophy), and so forth, I think his argument is a compelling and original one. It also overthrows over two thousand years of thinking -- which is especially why many people (particularly those "educated" in Western philosophy) struggle with Heidegger, and why he often gets accused (like many before him) of charlatanism, heresy, etc. etc.

Therefore, the pure description of phenomena that Heidegger and other phenomenologists pretend is impossible. We describe phenomena in a culture mediated background. — David Mo

Heidegger has ever -- not once -- claimed the opposite. Neither have I. "Pure description" is your own invention.

Just give up at this point and be happy with whatever you believe. You came into this discussion thinking Heidegger was one thing, saw what you wanted to see, and now will leave the same way.

You're a good example of "theory" effecting perception.

Heidegger suggest repetitively -if not claims- that Aristotelian-Cartesian concept of time is "theoretical" against his "authentic" concept of "temporality". — David Mo

You're consistently rife with confusions this discussion. Correcting your (probably not deliberate) mistakes and mischaracterizations is boring, so I'll be brief:

Heidegger never says his CONCEPT of temporality is "authentic." Never. Apparently he talked about authentic and inauthentic temporality, which in my view doesn't mean much -- but that's not the same thing. Try to get your wording correct.

You make FAR more claims for Heidegger can he does. From now on, either quote something or reference a page, because at this point you're simply making things up.

His concept is as theoretical as Aristotelian. — David Mo

In the sense that you're taking "theory," how could it be otherwise? Of course interpretation and description is involved. Language is involved. Thinking is involved. Otherwise there would be no Being and Time. Is this really what you're arguing? If so, congratulations -- huge insight.

One of the things Heidegger must justify theoretically is why the future is the primary mode within temporality, in preference to the past and present. — David Mo

Correct, he does have to justify that. We shouldn't take it on faith.

He does have an argument for this, consisting of many pages of words in a book called "Being and Time," which you've perused, with the intention of refuting (viz., not read at all).

(If you agreed with this, why did you argue? Why on earth did you add the superfluous consideration that temporality is "also" primary? It's just a desire to tangle things!). — David Mo

No, it's exactly the opposite: it's a desire to UNTANGLE things from your phrasings, which are imprecise. Your imprecision almost always skews Heidegger to an area you want him to be. You do this so often it's beyond count. It's no more "nitpicking" of me to correct these instances than it would be if you forget a decimal point while doing a math problem -- it changes everything else, so there's no need proceeding until it's fixed.

Here's a tip to be less boring: just assume, for a second, that Heidegger isn't a complete idiot. At least assume it about him -- I'd prefer you treated me that way as well, but I don't expect it given that I'm just an internet message board poster. Heidegger at least has some clout. If you don't want to bother with him, don't. If you do, do it seriously. That means putting aside pre-conceptions and what you've already heard about him, and really trying to get the story straight before launching criticisms. If you are having trouble getting the story straight, then turn to others for help and really push them to help you understand, until you truly "get it." THEN launch criticisms. Anything else is a complete waste of time.

Heidegger's reason is purely theoretical. It depends on his concept of the priority of the anticipatory resolution of life before death. This is a Heidegger's very subjective theory that, as in others, is influenced by his Christian education. And it is rationally unjustifiable. — David Mo

Cool -- you've figured out Heidegger and cracked the case. Good for you.

The way back is a revamping/rehabilitation of education. And imo, that means firing all the "educators" and replacing them with professional teachers; so-called educators being nothing more than bureau-rats looking out first, second, third, for their own interests, while teachers are usually interested in improving the minds and understanding of their students. — tim wood

The educational system has already been infiltrated. They've mostly been centers of indoctrination, selecting for obedience and conformity, with a few exceptions (when needed for innovation). This has gone on for a long time. Those who aren't "educated" in the sense of schooling, however, are especially up for grabs for charlatans like Trump, pseudo-intellectuals like Jordan Peterson, and pundits/political commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. They want answers for why their lives are so crappy, and they receive them from these sources. On the other side of the spectrum, the liberals are also sucked into their echo chambers and start taking their stands on things that don't matter much.

Neither group goes after the real power in America -- the fortune 500 and the corporate sector -- and when they do they're very quickly beaten back. It's fine to talk about guns, abortion, immigration, defunding the police, gay rights, transgender bathrooms, women's rights, sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. etc., but it's never been OK to talk about capitalism -- whether right or left. If you do, better make it a debate on Keynesian or neoliberal approaches -- don't question whether the entire system should be overthrown a la slavery and feudalism.

And how do I grasp or think about time if not through perception or theory? Divine inspiration?
Heidegger himself repeatedly calls his theory an analysis. If I remember correctly, he also calls it an interpretation. Analyzing and interpreting are ways of theorizing. Here and in China. — David Mo

Perception is not theory. The rest of what you said is true enough, but no one is denying that. You're having trouble reading me I guess, so I'll just repeat:

No one is making any claims like this about his interpretation. — Xtrix

This doesn't mean he's not giving an interpretation -- of course he is. It means the claims you say he's making about his interpretation is not the case. Pretty simple.

The question pertained to time, not theory or perception.
— Xtrix
Perception is not theory.
— Xtrix
True, but according to epistemology and psychology mere perception is influenced by theoretical conceptions. If you describe a perception you will include those theoretical elements. And this is true for Aristotle or Heidegger. — David Mo

Perception is not theory. Perceiving shapes and colors is very different indeed from theory. If we take "theory" or "theoretical" to mean something different than it means in the sciences (or philosophy), then we can claim anything we like -- in that case any sensation or perception is "theoretical." If you're convinced by that you're welcome.

Heidegger says that the future is the primordial existential ecstasis.
— David Mo
Temporality is primordial, not just the future. — Xtrix
— Xtrix — David Mo

Here it is. Underlined by Heidegger himself.

Primordial and authentic temporality temporalizes itself in terms of the authentic future and in such a way that in having been futurally, it first of all awakens the Present. The primary phenomenon of primordial and authentic temporality is the future. The priority of the future will vary according to the ways in which the temporalizing of inauthentic temporality itself is modified, but it will still come to the fore even in the derivative kind of 'time'. (B&T, #65, 330/378: cursive by Heidegger)

Hey, are you sure that what you have read with so much effort is Being and Time? — David Mo

Trouble reading again, I guess, so again I'll just repeat: temporality is primordial, not just the future.

That statement is true, and shown by the very passage you quote, as I clarified even more so (with underlines) in the same post:

Temporality is primordial, it's what the ordinary concept of time emerges from. The future is one aspect of temporality, and a particularly important one in Heidegger. — Xtrix

I don't see how I can be any clearer. If you want to insist on misunderstanding so that you can "win" a debate, feel free. If you want to learn something, listening carefully is your best bet. Your choice.

What he affirms is their continuous interaction in lived time (temporality). This is a triviality. What s — David Mo

It's a truism once pointed out. Yet it's been continually overlooked in the history of philosophy, including today.

What seems more radical is to say that his interpretation of temporality is the authentic and original temporal mode. — David Mo

No one is making any claims like this about his interpretation.

I have not seen Heidegger present any evidence of this. — David Mo

What you're trying to ask, and failing to, is this: where is the evidence that temporality is the "original temporal mode," etc. If you want evidence for Heidegger's description, introspect for a while. Introspection is a kind of evidence. Beyond that, there's an entire book that presents evidence for it -- it's called Being and Time. Temporality is care, and care is "being-in-the-world," and "being-in-the-world" is tied very closely to ordinary, average everyday activity, which is analyzed closely (phenomenologically) with very basic examples (hammering, etc) which only overthrows 2,500 years of Western philosophy. If the evidence, interpretation, description, etc., doesn't convince you -- fair enough. Stick to the analytic philosophers or whatever you prefer.