By paying attention to, for instance, "the negligent and the insignificant" (J. Miller) – "the immensity of the particular" (G. Steiner) – to begin with. IME, Heidegger makes a distinction without a difference: the "ontological mode" corresponds to limit-situations (K. Jaspers) of "the everyday mode". To wit:[H]ow do we shift from the everyday mode to the ontological mode? — ZzzoneiroCosm
NB: Closer to the pragmatic sense of wu wei, I prefer ecstasy to the term "enlightenment".Before enlightenment; chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment; chop wood, carry water. — Zen Kōan
But how do we shift from the everyday mode to the ontological mode? — ZzzoneiroCosm
we are filled with wonderment that things are in the world. — ZzzoneiroCosm
But how do we shift from the everyday mode to the ontological mode? — ZzzoneiroCosm
You seem to be seeing this as a self-improvement narrative. I wonder if that's what the OP was getting at. — Tom Storm
Irvin Yalom is an existential psychiatrist at Stanford. — ZzzoneiroCosm
When we exist in the ontological mode—the realm beyond everyday concerns—we are in a state of particular readiness for personal change. — ZzzoneiroCosm
IME, Heidegger makes a distinction without a difference: the "ontological mode" corresponds to limit-situations (K. Jaspers) of "the everyday mode". — 180 Proof
NB: Closer to the pragmatic sense of wu wei, I prefer ecstasy to the term "enlightenment". — 180 Proof
we are filled with wonderment that things are in the world.
— ZzzoneiroCosm
Why, and when, would we wonder that things are in the world? What else would be "in the world"? — Ciceronianus
But how do we shift from the everyday mode to the ontological mode?
— ZzzoneiroCosm
Why would anyone want to do that? To learn what, to know what, for what purpose? — Ciceronianus
Heidegger believes that we dont simply experience a world, each of us produces a world. For each of us, all of the particular objects and events that we experience are interwoven as a totality of relevant relations. When we recognize an object as something , it is already familiar
to us at some level in its belonging to our larger pragmatic dealings with the world. From time to time , these overarching schemes by which we interpret our world undergo transformation. We re-frame the frame. When we do this , we wonder anew at the world, because now we look at all its particulars with fresh eyes. This is how science evolves, through such gestalt shifts in outlook. — Joshs
I don't think this constitutes wondering that there are things in the world, which seems more along the lines of "wondering why there is something rather than nothing." That's what my questions addressed, for what they're worth. — Ciceronianus
Heidegger spoke of two modes of existence: the everyday mode and the ontological mode. — ZzzoneiroCosm
All that is fine, but links to Heidegger should be taken with a grain of salt. — Xtrix
Heidegger spoke of two modes of existence — ZzzoneiroCosm
Only two? What of the mode of complete involvement with an action in which we lose sense of self and immerse in the flow? Is this part of one of the two modes? I wouldn't equate it with ecstasy, however. — jgill
The connection between ecstasy and flow is addressed here — ZzzoneiroCosm
A difference in – not "of" – experience. A difference in degree, for sure, not in kind as Heidegger proposes..The experience of a limit situation within the everday - this seems to be the very difference you claim the distinction lacks. A difference of experience. — ZzzoneiroCosm
You've misread what I wrote, Zzz. I do not claim or imply that they are "interchangeable", only that I prefer to use the term ecstasy instead of enlightenment to indicate non-ordinary states-of-mind/consciousness (re: limit-situations).While I enjoy and appreciate your description of ecstasy, I don't believe it's accurate to treat enlightenment and ecstasy as in any way interchangeable.
You've misread what I wrote, Zzz. I do not claim or imply that they are "interchangeable", only that I prefer to use the term ecstasy instead of enlightenment to indicate non-ordinary states-of-mind/consciousness (re: limit-situations). — 180 Proof
By paying attention to, for instance, "the negligent and the insignificant" (J. Miller) – "the immensity of the particular" (G. Steiner) – to begin with. IME, Heidegger makes a distinction without a difference: the "ontological mode" corresponds to limit-situations (K. Jaspers) of "the everyday mode". To wit:
Before enlightenment; chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment; chop wood, carry water.
— Zen Kōan
NB: Closer to the pragmatic sense of wu wei, I prefer ecstasy to the term "enlightenment" — 180 Proof
model — Tom Storm
‘Why are there beings at all, and why not rather nothing?( — Joshs
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.