Karl: A Crucial Conversation
From Whooshup.org
| Karl's Main Page |
| Whooshup Wiki Main Page |
| Computers, Mathematics, and Science |
| Postmodern Computer Technology |
| Tesselect Math |
| Philosophy, Language, and History |
| A Crucial Conversation |
| The Hermeneutic Circle |
| Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Temporality |
| Historical Essays |
| Religion and Beyond |
| Theological Speculations |
| Copyright (©) 2008, 2009
on original material by Karl Tyson. |
| template |
Between March and August of 2008, I was involved in several crucial online chat-style discussions with other members of the Whooshup Discussion group. I have made only slight editorial condensations and typographical corrections. I have given each of the participants aliases. If you are wondering, I'm "Howard" and you could figure out everyone else if you wanted to do a little research. Basically, of the four of us Dreyfus and Heidegger fans, "Frank" is inclined toward religion, "Darrel" is inclined toward neo-paganism, "George" is inclined toward atheistic existentialism, and I am a confessed christian existentialist.
These are the "best" of the conversations I participated in the early, enthusiastic period of the Whooshup discussion group, and I think they give a feel for what it is like to have really good online philosophy discussions.
Contents |
Part 1 - Where Heidegger Went Wrong
March 3, 2008 - Religion in Heidegger
April 14, 2008 - Idealism versus Realism, Dreyfus and Religion
Part 2 - Where Heidegger Went Right
May 17, 2008 - Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty on Temporality
[18:36] foundrysmith1 Hammerer is Online [18:36] You decline EdTech Island, EdTech (191, 168, 24) from A group member named Ize Mesmer. [18:37] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: I'm not ready to let this one go, I'm just warming up! [18:37] Dashda Schism: Evening Karl. [18:37] You: hello [18:37] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: Hello Karl! [18:37] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: But the argument Heidegger makes in the introduction, is that " an original explication of time as the horizon of the understanding of Being, in terms of temporality (zeitlichkeit) as the Being of Dasein which understands Being [18:37] Dashda Schism: But nobody seemed to be able to make sense as to what that means. I think it would make a good paper topic Dean. [18:37] You: sorry i am late - had a wedding to help at [18:37] Connecting to in-world Voice Chat... [18:37] Connected [18:38] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: It has been a busy week for all of us! [18:38] Dashda Schism: Karl, please explain Temporality to us. [18:38] You: well, um...... [18:38] Dashda Schism: I want answers! [18:38] You: what ground have you guys covered to now? [18:39] Dashda Schism: Did you listen to the latest podcast? [18:39] You: I did listen to most of the last lecture [18:39] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: Anyway, Heidegger goes on to say that " the central range of problems of all ontology is rooted in the phenomenon of time correctly viewed and correctly explained" [18:39] You: what i can say is what i think dreyfus is trying to say [18:40] Dashda Schism: What, exactly, is Temporalitat? We sort of got that it was somehow the source of being and behind familiarity. [18:40] You: dreyfus turns the discussion back from the hardest to about the simplest phenom [18:40] You: why? [18:41] Dashda Schism: Are you talking about affordances and the workshop? [18:41] You: and familiarity [18:41] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: So the further argument is that if Being is to be conceived in terms of time.. then Being itself is made visible in its temporal "zeitlichkeit" character [18:42] Dashda Schism: The question of what is behind familarity which is something that has never really been posed before this. [18:42] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: The problem then becomes that "temporal" can no longer mean "being in time" [18:43] You: Dean, do you think you have the temporality vs. Temporality diff down yet? [18:43] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: I am just quoteing from the introduction. It seems to be presented theirin more clearly than waht we got out of the final podcast [18:44] Dashda Schism: Dreyfus doesn't seem to know what to make of it and he has been at it a long time. [18:45] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: I wouldn't debade Dreyfus, but I would be happy to quote passages out of B&T [18:45] You: i agree - i think dreyfus thinks Heidegger went "mildly" astray, got lost, and we might save him, but only by throwing the issue to Merleau-Ponty [18:46] Dashda Schism: How does Merleau-Ponty save him Karl? [18:46] You: i have just read M-P's chapter on Temporality - it actually makes more sense than Heideggers - of course he writes completely different style stuff [18:46] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: But Heidegger seems to be saying that there is a Temporality that is even more original than temporality. I think that is the main difference [18:46] You: and he goes back to Husserl - although he also leans heavily on Heidegger [18:46] Dashda Schism: Where does he "correct" or "improve"? [18:47] You: it has to do with exactly what dreyfus tried to bring in - but could not without leaving heidegger - namely the issue of perception and embodiment - the two things M-P does concentrate on [18:48] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: Is that also rooted in Husserl? [18:48] Dashda Schism: But how does that deal with temporality? [18:48] You: because M-P is all about perception, he makes the case that it is our perceptual system that unifies the past present future [18:49] You: i only have a weak grasp of all this - it just really makes what dreyfus tried to say make a lot more sense [18:49] You: about perception - do you recall that? [18:49] Dashda Schism: When we see a house, though we can only see it partially, somehow we percieve it as a substantial house. But if we find out it was only a facade, our very perception of it changes. [18:50] You: yes - but that's not temporality [18:50] You: when you perceive something, you keep it - it just gets "buried" under later perceptions [18:51] You: and the things you will perceive in a few moments or a few weeks - they are all lined up and ready to hit you (from the future) because of your "intentional arc" [18:52] You: this is exactlky what H says, only in terms of perception instead of ontology - on-the-basis-of-which's [18:52] Dashda Schism: What leads us, or has us project, towards this intentional arch? What are we projecting in perception? [18:52] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: How would perception be different from phenomenology? [18:53] You: M-P's book is The Phenomenology of Perception - he is doing the same thing as Heidegger with hammering, only he does not "take for granted" the way the hammerer is perceiving everything in his coping and background world [18:54] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: So that is the perception part [18:54] You: on the intentional arc - it is a very hard concept toi grasp - i don't know - it is a little like deleuze and his "lines" [18:55] Dashda Schism: So the act of perception is a coping that presses into possiblities or significance? [18:55] You: imagine a bunch of lines that connect your fingers to the keys they are about to type [18:55] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: groan - need more philosophy backgraound [18:56] Dashda Schism: I have the lines in my imagination. What next? [18:56] You: but all this is good lead-up to what i think dreyfus wants - to kind of "correct" heidegger, not like blattner, but by using this perception stuff to make it make sense - that's where familiarity comes in [18:57] Dashda Schism: But why doesn't he come right out and use Merleau-Ponty is that is what he thinks is needed? [18:57] You: the "arc" is all the lines that connect your body to the "equipment" that you "intend" to use in the future [18:58] You: i think because he can't - it's not the course on M-P - we'd all have to read it [18:59] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: Did Heidegger have any comment on the work of M-P? that we should examine? [18:59] You: good question - i dunno [19:00] Dashda Schism: So my body, my perceptions, are taking my past perceptions in the now to press into the future. I have leatrned to type, I am very very familair with the keyboard, and I now use that embodied skill to perform the task of typing this line. Is that close? [19:00] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: I get the idea from the podcasts that M-P extended Heideggerian ideas inareas where Heidegger didn't go [19:01] You: yes - right on both [19:01] You: M-P actually uses the ecstasis terminology for that [19:01] Dashda Schism: So Merleau-Ponty improves on Heidegger by making sense of familairty through embodiment? [19:02] You: the now is when you are "pulling through" those future actions and "burying them" into your past perceptions [19:03] Dashda Schism: And I could not have those future actions unless I had the storage of the past. And it is all actualized in the present. Sounds very familair. [19:03] You: i'm at the very edge of what i can figure out - i read M-P in a hurry - there's about as much there as in B&T [19:03] You: actually i take that back - heidegger is much denser prose - so 1 page of H is worth about 10 of M-P [19:04] You: but dreyfus has said that M-P is his favorite philosopher after H [19:04] Dashda Schism: Well, thats encouraging for when I pick up Merleau-Ponty at least. [19:05] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: He translated some of M-P's work into Engkish, that may be why he is partial [19:05] Dashda Schism: Karl, we haven't talked in awhile. Your thoughts on the idealist versus realist debate. [19:05] You: i think he's partial because M-P does the best job of extending H in a way dreyfus likes - even though M-P definitely is an idealist [19:06] You: dreyfus will always defend a robust realism - he sees it in heidegger and even tries to get it out of M-P [19:07] You: that is - "nature" time is real, not dependent on us [19:07] Dashda Schism: Why do you think he is having such a tough time with Blattner? [19:08] Dashda Schism: Why can't he just say that. He wants to, tries to, and then can't do it. [19:08] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: Maybe "world time" is real. and "nature time" is [19:08] You: it's a really big deal to the "in crowd" - we need Terry to give us the low down [19:09] You: it seems like its almost like being democrat or republican in politics - you have to take a side [19:09] Dashda Schism: Is it just parlor talk or is something really at stake. It seems as if it is but I am not sure what. [19:10] You: i'm the same way - i don't understand why we need to spend half the questions on it [19:10] Dashda Schism: Well, fellows, what are we taking away from Division II? [19:11] You: Dean, i totally agree with you that heidegger promises to make tempoprality explain everything [19:11] You: but i think i am with dreyfus - it needs help [19:11] You: but also i don't know squat...) [19:12] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: I think even Heidegger thinks it needs help.... but it is a good start on the way to other paths of the meaning of Being [19:13] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: And I am taking away from this a whole new perspective on how I might try to get through B&T a second time [19:13] Dashda Schism: I think I will as well. [19:13] You: let's talk about summer session a bit [19:14] Dashda Schism: Dean, where did you get that cartoon? [19:14] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: I went to google, and did an image search. it seemed to fit! [19:14] You: do you want to do later heidegger and then do his podcast class right afterwards in Fall? [19:15] You: would we be repeating or giving ourselves a head start? [19:15] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: I want to do it all (time permitting, of course) [19:15] Dashda Schism: Are you talking about the Later Heidegger podcasts or the reading schedule on the wiki. [19:15] You: both now [19:15] You: plus - you just found his last later heidegger lectures on torrent [19:16] You: i am assuming he will podcast next Falls class - though he might not [19:16] Dashda Schism: I think we are all going to listen to the podcasts (I've already started) and the reading will probably suppllement. I would like to do both. [19:16] Dashda Schism: The fall course is going to concentrate on Holderlin or is it all latter hEIDEGGER? [19:17] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: We can certainly hope he will. According to the Phil Newsletter, he maintained his own site with his lectures in the past, hopefully he will keep up the tradition [19:17] You: have either of you heardd about a movie that is about a float trip doen the danube and scholars talk about heidegger? [19:18] Dashda Schism: Yes. I've got it saved on my favorites. I will e-mail to you guys. [19:18] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: Yes. But I didn't want to spend $400 to get a copy [19:18] You: let's get it listed as a resource and hope we find it cheaper than that [19:19] Dashda Schism: Just trying to get clear. Are we going to, then, follow the Later Heidegger podcasts this summer? [19:20] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: I think if we go through the Summer course, we will find ourselves constantly fererring back to B&T. So the review is going to be a big part of the program, maybe it is just trying to figure out the right way to work it in [19:20] You: we could - and we could still read the H essays in the textbook - it is easy to find and they are the crucial essays, i believe [19:20] Dashda Schism: The alternative be going through 185 again? [19:21] You: for later heidegger - and, dean, doesn't he sort of drift away from B&T in later years? [19:22] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: I think he just explores different paths. B&T was his big thing, and so much of his later work seems to depend upon what was it it and what wasn't [19:22] You: well - i have heard there is quite a scholarly debate about "the turnj" [19:23] You: one side agrees with you - and he said he never abandoned B&T - the other side says he did [19:23] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: Yes . Dreyfus mentioned that there is a whole 'nother click of olks who go in for "contributions to philosophy", and all the fancy talk contained theirin [19:24] Dashda Schism: Doesn't he drop all the existential musings of Division II but at least continue to work within the framework he set down in I? [19:24] You: well, let's just do the summer session and make sure we have more knowledge after it than we do now! [19:25] Dashda Schism: Just like temporality:) [19:25] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: I beleive he places less emphasis on time (temporality) as the underpinning of dasein, and goes more towards the "unconcealment" in the clearing. But I hope to learn more about the ins and outs this Summer [19:25] You: i am in favor of doing the readings as dean has it, and then those who want to can listen to the old dreyfus lectures - do you knoiw what year they are from brad? [19:25] Dashda Schism: 2001 [19:26] You: great - anything else to hash out? [19:26] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: What aout the invite to Dreyfus? should we give it a try? [19:27] You: yes. i will send what we have, but let's wait until tomorrow - we may get to chat with Terry and I would like his input before finalizing [19:28] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: Good idea. I will make a point to be here on Sunday, I haven't had a chance to chat with Terry for a while and would appreciate his input [19:29] Dashda Schism: Allright. Good evening gentlemen. [19:29] You: goodnight [19:29] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: Hasta la Vista! [19:30] You: please make a copy of the chat - i missed first part
August 7 - How Heideggerian Computer Programs Might Work
[4:13] Dashda Schism: Go ahead and get us started Karl. [4:14] You: well, my only possible point of contact will probably be in using computer technology to drive back the ill effects of computers - this is a line that dreyfus has worked much on [4:15] You: he has been the strongest critic of technology, but has also pointed to ways a computer could be used in a different way - a re-humanizing way [4:15] Dashda Schism: How so? [4:16] You: as usual, it's deep. the point is that we approach technology as subject/object, and then lose ourselves - we pass beyond subject/object into pure resources [4:16] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: I did see a 1999 paoper of his that suggested that distance learning on the Internet would not work.. I hope we can prove him wrong! [4:17] Dashda Schism: Yet he is a pioneer in podcats. He must feel there is some value. [4:17] You: that's part of it - but we have to go back to initial assumptions about the computational model - Turing machines, etc. We have to find a technology that clears out a part of our world and provides an articulated background [4:18] You: in a sense, we have to look at how our "brains" really work - the phenomenology - and try to get our technology working in a similar way [4:19] You: we assumed (in the 40s and 50s when we started computers) our brains were calculating machines - they aren't [4:19] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: how do we make sure that we are in charge, and not the technology? [4:19] You: yes - that's a trust issue - but peaople trust the darn things now - even with no reason to [4:20] Dashda Schism: For Dreyfus, the problem seems to be that we cannot program computers to have familiarity. Is that what is being worked on? [4:20] You: yes - but i go beyone dreyfus, because he accepts the paradigm that a computer must "stand alone" as an isolated system. i am working on an idea where computers "mesh" with users [4:21] You: if users have familiarity - so will their computer [4:21] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: On the Internet, there is the opportunity to select what one looks at, as opposed to the TV, which is programed to you [4:21] Dashda Schism: Will, then, the computer be completely dependent on the user? [4:22] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: A particular user may be drawn into a particular thing [4:22] You: perhaps - it is a definitional question - isn't your computer completely dependent on you turning it on? [4:22] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: Yup [4:23] Dashda Schism: Yes. I guess my question is about familiairty. Will it get a familiairty of its own (can it learn in this way) or will it always be dependent upon mine? [4:24] You: dreyfus' deepest objection is that computers do not have a body - "embodiment problem" it's true - we need to provide the body part of the equation and let the computer extend that [4:24] You: a lot of this also takes from Merleau-Ponty - he says all our thinking is "gestural" - he means that when we think it registers in muscle [4:25] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: Body language? [4:25] You: yes but much more - even when you do not (appear to) move [4:26] Dashda Schism: How can the embodiment be done with the computer? [4:26] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: Here is a quote from Lafont quoting Humbolt: The inauguration of this perspective was already implicit in Humboldt's famous remark against the objectivist view of lan-guage: his assertion that language "is not a product but an activ-ity." Language cannot be regarded as an object observable by subjects; rather, it is tied to an activity of understanding in which speakers participate [4:26] You: it can't - at best it could be simulated, but that will never capture it - dreyfus is right [4:27] You: i am working on a "pairing" idea, where a human supplies the bodily reactions and the computer does a different part of the process [4:28] Dashda Schism: In what way will our understanding of technology (and I guess more importantly ourselves) change? Is it through our interaction with the computer we will then get a more adequate of ourselves? [4:28] You: primarily - i see it as a vehicle to review and perhaps recover marginal practices and perspectives [4:28] Dashda Schism: How far along are you Karl? [4:29] You: well, i have been absent these weeks largely because i am immersed in it - i quit my job, etc. is that any indicator? maybe years, maybe months [4:30] Dashda Schism: Damn. You are taking being resolute very seriously. Are you working on this with others? [4:31] You: you must also realize that i have to start very simple - so the software i am seeking will not be dramatic like a new second life or anything like that - more like an advanced word processor [4:31] Dashda Schism: Tells us how what you envision will help us review or recapture marginal practices? [4:31] You: no - how can i explain it even? you guys are most equipped to figure what i mean [4:32] You: it is exactly what we have been talking about - what is the difference between just "reading about" the early calendars, and "experiencing" what they were like? [4:33] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: You are probably still working it out yourself [4:33] You: yes, and this helps [4:33] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: Your journey sounds exciting! [4:33] Dashda Schism: So you want to take people "into" with the aide of the computer (which makes this possible) different worlds of understanding? [4:34] You: it is just a hunch - and may prove futile [4:34] Dashda Schism: Do you have anything written up we could look at? [4:34] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: You could use the computer like one might use a hammer- with you in control, not the hammer [4:34] You: what i want is a Merleau-Pontian program, one that builds up a "sedimented history" of past experiences [4:35] You: but again, very simple to start. the real problem is going against 50 years of computer assumptions [4:36] Dashda Schism: Would all of the background be in the program? Is that where the experiences are to be had? [4:36] You: actually, i would like to send you the early versions of the program, and let you be testers. that may be many months from now [4:36] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: I'm "game" [4:37] Dashda Schism: I would be very happy to help in any way I could. [4:37] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: Would this be a sedimented reservoir, or an interactive "jug"? [4:37] You: Dean, each user would have to build up an "articulated background" - we can supply some of that - like when we educate little children - but most would have to be built up - it would call for patience i'm afraid [4:37] You: both [4:38] Dashda Schism: Are you alone on this Karl or are some others working with you or at least consulting? [4:39] You: alone - i tried to telegraph some of these ideas to dreyfus, but he has been unresponsive [4:39] You: i will soon seek investors, but i dread that part of the processs [4:39] Dashda Schism: Do you have a prospectus written? [4:40] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: Anxiety should be a good motivator [4:40] You: sort of - but it's not polished enough yet [4:40] Dashda Schism: Could you send what you have? [4:40] You: i will work on it when i have time and send it to you [4:40] You: right now i am grappling with some very basic, actually quite simple, math issues needed to make all this work [4:41] You: i appreciate the positive feedback - i feel don quixote ish [4:42] Dashda Schism: Explain how the articulated background works if you can in this cramped space? [4:42] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: Keep us posted! It sounds like the kind of environment cyberspace could use more of [4:42] You: remember when i kept saying the M-P had a view of time that extended and was perhaps better than H? [4:43] Dashda Schism: Yes. [4:43] You: he gave the idea of memories being in the "now" not in the brain [4:43] You: classical theory says all our memories are stored in the brain [4:44] You: M-P says all our memories are stored in a sedimented history that is present with us all the time - in our "now" [4:44] You: computer science accepted the "in the brain" idea [4:44] You: that is why your computer has a "memory" [4:45] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: When I am driving through an old neighborhood after being absent for many years, things come back to my mind. I also suspect that it is more a question of "being in" as opposed to retrieval of data from a memory bank [4:46] You: yes - so that's the first difference. now, i think our articulated background is our sets of meaning imposed on an essentially chaotic structure of incoming "energy" from the real world out there [4:47] You: i know this gets weird, but my idea is to superimpose our meaning bits - that is ontic or semantic molecules - onto a chaotic background [4:47] You: then, make that background available for a user to "find" and "articulate" what that means to him or her [4:47] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: So we have a filter of sorts, unique to a particular dasein, which makes the interpretation [4:48] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: in the now [4:48] You: wow - that's right on [4:48] You: this is where walter freeman and his brain dynamics come in - dreyfus references him extensively [4:48] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: Great! we can do distance learning! [4:49] You: he says that the brain does not "hold" memory, but rather maps it onto brain energy fluctuations - a certain stimulant will produce different energy, but the same response [4:50] You: so in my system i map bits of meaning (which i assume to be our best shared undertsanding) onto a chaotic or complex backgroud flux - or pattern [4:51] You: the key things is these bits - which would be lists. an example would be the alphabet - 26 characters [4:52] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: So that will be the challenge, to reduce this idea to an algorthim set that a computer can process, and we can use as a tool [4:52] You: it could be any alphabet, or syllables, or words - they will map into chaos and create lots of nonsense, and just a few sections that make perfect sense - then you just find those sections [4:53] You: ok, now you know way more about this than anybody else! [4:53] You: except my wife - but she doesn't really understand why one would do such a thing [4:54] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: Just one more tie in from Lafonts work on language: they realized that the peculiarity of language, in contrast with any other system of signs, is that language makes it possible to refer to the same thing in different ways.' But beyond this, both authorsestablished this distinction in an identical manner, although this move is far from obvious: they generalized the meaning-referencedistinction, viewing it as applicable to all linguistic signs (even proper names). In this way, they arrived at the general thesis that meaning determines reference. [4:54] You: good - that distinction is something i hope to handle better than ordinary computaional systems can [4:55] foundrysmith1 Hammerer: Better to do this now while you are still "young", than to be old and wish you had!
