those who feel most at home are those who accepted that it was not home.

thank you.

understood. And you may be right. I just do not want anyone to suggest that Arne thinks Heidegger would support your claim. As I have already noted, I have not yet read the Origin of the Work of Art and Heidegger's characterization of us as the "in-between" came later in his thought development and he did not explicate the term. Personally, I am excited by the possibility that the book might support your position. I am surprised that you are not. Good luck.

If you have no interest in the Origin of the Work of Art, then why are here? How would you even know if your apparently obvious claims have anything to do with the Origin of the Work of Art if you have not even read the book? I am simply suggesting that whether your claim (obvious or otherwise) is supported or not supported by the Origin of the Work of Art in any significant way cannot be known without reading the book. The apparent obviousness of your claim is hardly a justification for choosing not read any book?

Eye and Mind — StreetlightX

thanks. Just found it. Will read it today. But I have been reading Heidegger for years and his failure to address the body is a gaping hole in his ontology and as a result POP has been near the top of my list for quite some time. The fact that it is difficult reading is why I was hoping to drum up interest in a group reading. Perhaps you would be interested in joining the group or providing input/guidance? If you had some advice on how to lay out a reading schedule or any sort of other logistic advice, I would greatly appreciate if you sent me a message.

I have not read the book and there is nothing anyone has said that supports you use of the words "therefore" followed by "must". But there have been no premises advanced upon which to even claim "therefore." Perhaps you brought them with you?

you may be right. Have you read the book? I would like to read the book. I have been unable to find an electronic copy. I may have to go to the library.

have you read the book? I would like to read the book. I am unable to find an electronic copy. I guess I can go to the library.

We are not agents experiencing a work of art.

We are the experience of the work. — Arne
Then that must therefore hold true for experience generally - of life generally. — raza

Are you familiar with the Phenomenology of Perception by Merleau-Ponty. Not only does it fill in the huge perceptions gaps in Heidegger's philosophy, it was written for that purpose. Please advise if you would be interested in a reading/discussion group on Phenomenology of Perception.

Yes. What is Red? Where is Red? When we know Red and find Red we will have solved the Hard Problem of Consciousness, not just for Red but for all Conscious Experience. — SteveKlinko

I do not know.

Perhaps the great mystery of the location of red will some day be resolved and we can stop losing sleep over it.

It is simply not an issue I find intriguing at this point in time.

Good luck finding the location of red and if you do find it, could you take a look around for blue? Blue is my favorite color.

:smile:

Then that must therefore hold true for experience generally - of life generally. — raza

That could be.

But the subject matter of the book is the Origin of the Work of Art.

In addition, I will reiterate that Heidegger was educated in mathematics and physics and his philosophy from beginning to end is markedly void of explanations regarding perceptions.

And his use of the term "in-between" was nothing he expounded upon in any systematic way. It was simply a term he began to use more in his later thoughts.

So even though I agree with the idea you advance, "that must therefore hold true" strikes me as too strong a claim.

To put it more succinctly, the question would be whether there are any electrons there, or just clouds, without the human act of individuation, which distinguishes individual electrons. — Metaphysician Undercover

Or even clouds.

I didn't raise any language issue. A bunch of posts back somebody made the claim that if we could just "Get the Language Right" then the Hard Problem would go away. — SteveKlinko

So I am mistaken about who raised the issue.

Why would that matter?

My comments were about the language.

I took no position regarding the location of the color red.

I am sure will find it.

The only thing that would make me hesitate is not wishing to detract from the Heidegger and Wittgenstein reading groups. — John Doe

Got it.

I am confident I know Heidegger well enough.

And my reading of Merleau-Ponty is long overdue.

Should it develop, I am confident we can work it out.

I'm working on a dissertation heavily focused on Merleau-Ponty. — John Doe

The cavalry has arrived.

have you read Merleau-Ponty? A woman from Greece needs assistance in understanding the sensory gaps left in Being and Time. I have offered to read the Phenomenology of Perception with her. Whether you have read it or not, please join the discussion at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3611/on-heideggers-the-origin-of-the-work-of-art-and-aesthetics

It makes sense and I agree.

We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

Heidegger was educated as a mathematician and a physicist.

The person who fills in the sensory gap you have identified is Maurice Merleau-Ponty.

His magnum opus is the Phenomenology of Perception.

Not only does the Phenomenology of Perception fill in the gap you have identified, it was written for that very purpose.

I have not read it.

It is on my reading list.

If you would wish to read it together, I can move it to the top of my list.

If you have not already figured it out, I am a Heideggerian and my failure to read Mr. Merleau-Ponty has been bothering me for quite some time.

Do we not feel the world as unheimlich precisely because we could lose it, and thus lose ourselves, at any moment? And on the other hand whenever choices are made are we not "being towards death" in the sense that we feel the death of all the possibilities that become closed off due to choice, and the existential dread that comes with that? — Janus

Indeed.

And therein is the essence of the ironic nature of this matter.

My dog. He is only about twelve pounds. But ounce for ounce, he would be the world champion of snoring canines.

I don't think Nietzsche's notion of will to power means what you think it means. (not to mention, it is a posthumous publication of scraps collected by his sister. Nietzsche himself had already rejected the idea of publishing it in the preparatory outline that his sister used to organize disparate writings.)

The will to power was about overcoming the self, not about overcoming others.

Ear of the Other is a publication of a lecture given by Derrida regarding Nietzshe.

In it, he talks about the notion of signature.

And it is rather complex and mostly over my head, but he distinguishes between those who sign their work and those who make their readers sign their work.

Those who sign their work are quickly forgotten.

People will be signing Nietzsche's works for hundreds of years, perhaps thousands if our species survives that long.

I trust no one who claims to understand Nietzsche.

There are only interpretations.

And I suspect that was his intent.

I'll tell you the cops serve and protect? Huh? I thought it was common knowledge that Nazism claimed to represent a "third way" beyond capitalism and communism. The one good thing about this most uncharitable strawman though - with its seemingly shameless and dishonest insinuations of my own beliefs - is that you've revealed your political leanings. I hate to break it to you, dork, but Nietzsche is no ally. I'll say it again: Nietzsche is a complex thinker who holds some disturbing and occasionally contradictory views. But he's far removed from the political left and right, at least those manifestations that are relevant these days. I'd even say that he "transcends" those superficial categories. IMO of course. — Erik

if not for the word "dork", it would have been a KO.

But you do get the TKO.

:smile:

I would suggest that the impassioned notion of the eternal YES pretty much covers it.

The Gestalt value of The Will to Power andTriumph of the Will speaks for itself.

Nietzsche was a good person.

I think of him as the philosophical version of Van Gough.

Someone once pointed out that Nietzsche despised nationalism, socialism, and anti-Semitism, but if we're willing to overlook these facts then he may very well have made a great Nazi. — Erik

Indeed.

His sister prostituted the works of her dead brother.

He was a good person.

I agree.

Thank you for the clarification.

ITS RIGGED!!

:cool:

I believe Chomsky goes wrong by thinking that thoughts are these inner private experiences. . . . for my thoughts to mean anything to you, there must be something in common with my inner experiences and yours. . . — Sam26

I have parsed your words for brevity and do not want to take you out of context. However, I did parse as I did because the two "strike" me as inconsistent.

If experiences are inner, how could thoughts about them not be inner? And do I not experience my thoughts regarding my experiences? Would anyone think it odd to say "I remember I was thinking about my experience. . ."

I am puzzled as to why my experiences would be inner while my thoughts about them would not.

Perhaps the inner outer thing is just getting in the way. (as it often does).

Good comment.

Birth trauma reawakened — unenlightened

that is funny.

That's not a particularly convincing argument. — tom

Touche.

That is funny.

I agree.

We are not agents experiencing a work of art.

We are the experience of the work.

We are the in between.

And for Heidegger, being is that on the basis of which beings render intelligible the entities encountered within the world they are in.

That the art is rendered intelligible is the revelation of being. The how of the rendering is of little interest to Heidegger. It is the rendering itself that is the revelation.

I suspect Heidegger would gladly leave the how of the rendering to cognitive science.

I also suspect that would be true of most artists.

Yes.

By the time of the publishing of the Origin of the Work of Art, Heidegger's thought development brought him to the conclusion that we are the in between.

subject/object is just the tip of the iceberg. And it is not just philosophy. All disciplines desperately attach labels to that which they cannot explain. And then they proceed as if the label explains.

it most certainly will be epic. :smile:

Yes.
Kierkegaard was a significant influence Heidegger.

Heidegger arrives at much the same conclusions through his analyses of Anxiety in section 40 of Being and Time.

I find it ironic that it is our sense of not feeling at home in the world that gives rise to the dread of losing that very world in which we do not feel at home.

It is not my intent to engage in the Cartesian/Materialsim/Heideggerian debate.

He solicited advice on language.

I gave it too him.

And now you are proving me correct.

Thank you.

:smile:

That is begging the issue.

Everyone agrees their experience of red is conscious.

Not everyone agrees the red is in their mind (where their consciousness lives?).

Some believe the red is in the world.

Nobody has non-conscious experiences of red.

Calling it a "conscious" experience of red raises the foregoing issues; it does not resolve them.

discussions take on a life of their own. If we end up at the same place as when the discussion started, there is no point in the discussion. Just saying. I am moving on to other things now. I suspect our paths will cross again. :smile:

I think that for some people 2 opens up the possibility that the Red is out there in the Physical World. Whereas 1 emphasizes the fact that the Red it is in your Conscious Mind. Extra words can further specify and define things. — SteveKlinko

You raised the issue of language.

Who is your audience? I find it confusing.

Calling it a "conscious" experience of red tells me nothing about where the red is.

Certainly the materialists consider their experience of red to be "conscious."

There is no un"conscious" experience of red.

Calling it a "conscious" experience of red only raises the forgoing issues, it does not resolve them.

Just saying.

are you suggesting that difference depends on the perceiver while the boundaries that enable to the perceiver to assign a difference does not? — Arne

What I am saying is that Janus assumes the existence of independent boundaries . . . I argue that it is the mind which individuates. . . — Metaphysician Undercover

.

And I agree. And as far as I am concerned, Janus has gone too in even conceding the possible existence of boundaries. People are uncomfortable with the notion of the universe as just a bunch of gray clouds of electrons (let us give them at least a minimal visualization) floating around and bumping into each other.