This site is supported by Nobility Studios.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

110 Excellent

About soleo

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender: Not Telling

soleo's Activity

  1. soleo added a post in a topic Anyone interested in correspondence?   

    Nice post, Michio. I've had a look through the things you're interested in and although nothing jumps at me straight away, we might have a thing or two in common.

    Music is an obvious biggy. Over 55,000 songs and growing and a decent and educated % of that is electronic. Economics: I'm interested in studying and deconstructing neoliberalism/neoclassicalism. A part of this area involves picking apart its economic theory and demonstrating its weaknesses (supply/demand curves, indifference curves, pivot point income, utility etc). Philosophy: I 'have' one of those honour-uni-degree things in this field which really doesn't mean anything other than the ability to cough up dough to do the course, read a few books, sit down and write a few essays and memorise what was asked and spurt the stuff come exam time, but it might help if there are basic problems you are dealing with. Other than that, I have a general and broad interest in critical theory and continental (European) philosophy.

    Like most here, I have a broad and healthy interest in reading and cultural study in general. To this I can add that I have many, many, many volumes of notes I've made from most stuff I've read, so this might be of interest (probably over 60 volumes). As an example, the stuff I've posted recently on Heidegger is how my notes run on that particular thinker, same kindof structure runs through most other topics and writers taken from. Other than that, I'm fluent in both English and Spanish, have a decent understanding of their grammar, a pretty decent cook and cocktail maker, love films and travel.

    If you feel there might be something here, just let me know.
    • 0
  2. soleo added a post in a topic Music you like...   

    Etta James, one of the greatest singers of the twentieth century, died today. She had a fascinating, roller coaster life, the stuff of legend, the stuff you could make into a hundred films, a life you could look on and say, that was destiny. And as fitting with most musicians of any significance, she kept herself distant from mainstream banality and recognition and only belatedly gained widespread attention when some of her songs either showed up in tacky, tinsel-town Hollywood, or were 'sang' by lesser lights of wider appeal.

    It's impossible to sum a career that spanned some six decades, and indeed, a lot of her albums over that period are not really worth digging into, but anyone who pretends to have even the most minimal interest in modern music cannot be without Etta's Chess 50th Anniversary Collection and the 1960 album, At Last.

    Here's a couple of highlights from a most impressive life. ¡Viva Etta! ¡Viva!

    P.S. Sorry about the shitty videos, but it's the music that counts, right?
    • 0
  3. soleo added a post in a topic What books are you reading now?   

    The Will to Power was edited by Nietzsche's sister and Geist after Nietzsche's death. Eli had her own agenda which I consider was far from Nietzsche's intentions. This book is one of the reasons why someone so bright as Berty Russell completely failed to understand the thinker, why Nietzsche ended up with a reputation for being anti-semitic and connecting his idea of the ubermensch with Hitler's Master Race. I think a more fruitful and deeper understanding of Nietzsche can be obtained from reading both, On the Genealogy of Morality and Beyond Good and Evil.
    • 0
  4. soleo added a post in a topic A Simpleton's Reading of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus   

    There's another interesting position which may arise from this sentence. I've thought about it a little this morning and offer up the following:

    One could argue that there are 'things' and 'facts' and that the latter are things given value, given cultural predicates; we lay a function of meaning onto brute things which in their collective make up the world of significance. So, for example, in this game, we have a brute paper-thing with ink-stuff on it, or a brute slab of wood and hole and they are imbued with meaning and taken up as the fact of being money or a door.

    This is a valid position and makes up the world of 'science', but could we suggest that it misses another world, a world which is already meaningful, a world already structured in significance which is already there before we are born? As we grow up in the world, when something is encountered, say the door, the chairs or the floor, they already have significance, aleady have an involvement.

    This is difficult to put into words, but let's imagiine a little toddler. I'm figuring she does not go about projecting cultural predicates onto the things out there, but discloses the meaning of the things by way of its use. The door, say, is the to go out and the baby's skillful coping, its familiarity of its world, already has an understanding of that door which is - until abstracted and thought about - not a fact, not a value, but does already have a transparent, unreflective, non-factual, unnoticeable, meaning.

    And just as importantly, none of this meaning need necessarily be 'in' the mind. It is, for example, the door which draws us to go out, it is the chair which draws us to sit upon, not that we imbue them with a cultural fact like 'that is the to go out' or 'that is the to sit on' and then behave accordingly.

    In this way, we can also suspect from the quote that it is assuming the ontology of a self-sufficient subject which is the source of meaning, the thing which melds intentional content onto the things out there, and this itself is another paradigm open to great critique.

    Just some thoughts on a morning.
    • 1
  5. soleo added a post in a topic Biketrip   

    Thinking about general safety, decent roads, gorgeous lanscapes, beautiful people, mind-blowing culture and cuisine, and good weather, I think these areas are just perfect: the Loire Valley and the Tuscany region.
    • 0
  6. soleo added a post in a topic A Simpleton's Reading of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus   

    Peter, if all statements describe possible facts and the totality of these facts is the world, then anything we say about the world, everything that might make it valuable to us, must lie outside the world. The world, in terms of the kind of logic expressed in the proposition, cannot be expressed.

    With this reading, the question of significance of the world cannot be raised so long as we are bound within this kind of logic, that is, so long as one is fettered to merely formulating statements about things or events in the world, where the world is conceived solely in terms of a multiplicity of facts. We might even want to refer to the following possible interpretations. One: the question and meaning of the world has already been bracketed from us; two: that the world is unable to be expressed in a set of propositions; and three: that perhaps the world cannot be formulated at all.

    I appreciate that this is only one of a number of possible readings, but maybe to get at the world, it shouldn’t be conceived solely in terms of what-content; that the type of logic which reduces the world, its significance and meanings to merely a multiple of whats should be itself questioned, open to critique and possible liquidation.
    • 1
  7. soleo added a post in a topic A Preparatory Reading of Being & Time   

    I think it's not so much a 'direct grab' at being but more a provisional, circumspectional understanding, a formal indication. Indeed, by the mid-thirties, Heidegger didn't think you could get at being solely through Dasein. Society and culture, structures and practices, which imbue themselves in Dasein, also need to be accounted for.

    Nevertheless, with that said, I wanted to just draw attention to the manner in which I have gone about reading B&T and which may help a little to some of the other readers. I don't know....

    The provisional claim, the one being worked over in the entire text is that being is not a substance of any kind, it is not a form, a god, a substance with predicates, or what have you, but merely "that on the basis of which entities are already understood..." (p25:6).

    This means that whatever being is, however some-thing, whatever that some-thing be, makes sense to you, it has to do with your understanding, intelligibility, a comprehension of some kind. Now, this is radical. The entire tradition has pretty much said that being is the most general property, universal, indefinable and self-evident, but if you start framing being as something which is understood by you and your kind, you're beginning to undercut some of those notions.

    If you stop to pause at page 25, already little questions should spark: Understood by what? When? How? Under what circumstances? And you can appreciate that the given answer, the ones you give youself right here, may not necessarily be universal, indefinable, a general property and self-evident.

    Indeed, playing along with Heidegger just at this page, without any need to read on, what does it mean for something to be understood? If something, for me, is understood, then as I reflect on that which is understood, I'm already having to draw on a bewildering frame of other features and characteristics. The pen, to be understood, needs to draw itself or refer to other things like ink, plastic, ball-points, paper, which again, refer to other things, like wood, oil, which in turn refer to other things, and just for the sake of argument, point to implicit understandings of language and writing, given social practices, ways of behaviour and activities in given historical times, education, and so on. The being of the pen, as something understood by me as a pen, even at this most basic level, once reflected upon has a most complex way of being.

    Okay, so we read on a little more and we get to "Being arises from the average understanding of being in which we always operate and which...belongs to the essential constitution of Dasein itself." (p28.8).

    Being belongs to Dasein! Our understanding of being arises from us. And what of this 'average understanding' what does that mean? At this point, I didn't read on. I put the book down and went for a walk, I went to college and to work, strolled the park, watched the children and the families, went to a bar and had a coffee. Certainly, I saw folk dealing with things. They were walking the streets, going in and out of door ways, picking up pens and bags, exchanging money for goods, picking up forks and knives in a general manner, dressed in a way, talking in another, going about their lives coping and struggling, and if I asked a child or an adult in class what theoretical concepts, hypothesis, theories, grammars they were drawing upon as they went about their everyday life, they, like me, couldn't give an answer.

    They were just doing their thing, skillfully doing things without, in many cases, any deep reflection and certainly not drawing upon complex theories as they went about their daily lives. Most folk I encountered had this practical comportment towards the world of being. They, like me, knew-how to go about, and generally knew what they had to do.

    And this led me to think what is the structure of that kind of fundamental understanding, what of the world these fellows move about in, what of their encountering with others, and so on. I went back to the book and read on.

    In this manner, reading, reflecting, re-reading, reflecting, will mean that B&T will take years to read, but there's really no hurry. If the language throws you, don't worry. Just reflect on what you do grasp and even that will be something very significant and life rewarding.
    • 0
  8. soleo added a post in a topic A Preparatory Reading of Being & Time   

    I figure it all a bit of an exaggeration but if I recall, William Blattner said that for a good five years or so, he didn't read anything but B&T. And Sean Kelly has said pretty much the same thing. I've read in someplace, somewhere that Dreyfus took about forty years to 'finally nail' the sense of some given lines in B&T. If it's any consolation, there must only be a handful of loons in each country, each year who ever decide to read B&T and most of those who begin, will never finish. Go slow, read, re-read, re-read. Let the book rest for a while and reflect on the phenomena Heidy is trying to expose you to. If you feel on any given section you are lost or confused, don't ignore the problem. And don't worry. Try to voice your concern, maybe someone can help. I good tip is not to read the introduction because it's not really going to be understood until the book is finished. Another, keep on asking yourself, Is this how it is? Is this how it is for me?

    Here's a nice essay on problems of translation, German philosophy and Heidegger:
    • 0
  9. soleo added a post in a topic Drawing/Painting   

    Any chance of seeing some of your art work, Blood?
    • 0
  10. soleo added a post in a topic Three economic roles   

    A couple of ideas struck me as intriguing, namely:

    If you're about and the desire so takes you, is it possible to highlight what you understand by these notions?
    • 0
  11. soleo added a post in a topic A Preparatory Reading of Being & Time   

    David, I think you've got a good grasp and I'm comfortable with the notion of 'conscious interaction with the world' if it doesn't assume some private-experiencing subject. Even when Martin talks about 'understanding' or 'state of mind' we've got to be careful. So, if we can appreciate that at almost all times it is a type of Cartesian, Searle, Kantian, Humean, Lockean paradigm which is being panned, we're definitely on the right track.

    Indeed, the more I read of Being and Time, the more I feel Heidy is having a little natter, not so much with Descartes and all that mind-stuff which follows right up to Searle of today, but more with Kant's critique. Evidently, right from the opening, Kant argues that experience requires understanding and while Kant asks himself the Cartesian question: what does understanding supply to experience, or better said, what do we supply to have experience of the world. Heidegger says to Kant, yeah, that's good, but if you do that we're going to run into problems like idealism/realism, still stumble on the endless empirical Versus rational debates of skepticism, others minds etc. What we should ask is a more passive question, something like: How does understanding arise? And the answer seems to be from a primordial, rock bottom, basic, non-cognitive familiarity in the world from a species who takes a stand on its being, who makes being an issue for it.

    Since realising this, I will need to go back over Kant and will need to re-study to see how the conversation I have in my hand really pans out between Heidy & Kant.

    Nevertheless, with that said, if you ever feel or consider that the phenomena explication of Dasein is questionable or misleading, then that ought to be brought to light. At every move, as we keep our eyes on the ball, all we have to do is ask ourselves, Is it really like that for me? This goes for the misreadings of Heidegger a la existentialism.

    Highlighting just the same phenomenon you mention above can be found here: http://www.galilean-...dpost__p__50702 . I don't know if that helps, but I brought it up just to show you that I too have read old Heidy boy in similar fashion.

    If any further enquiries arise, I'd be only too happy to post replies via email.
    • 0
  12. soleo added a post in a topic A Preparatory Reading of Being & Time   

    I should have added this to the end of the other post, but no worries.

    We should by now have a more or less basic understanding of dasein and the approach H is going to take with B&T and I feel we are now ready to enter the world of Being-in which hovers around pages 78 to 104.

    This is a complex and mighty section, so I think it's a good idea for folk to digest what is going on here in their own way, under the perspective of their own understanding, before I make any more comments on the text, and I feel this may take some time. It's a big section and there's a lot of things going on.

    So, for now, I'll leave the discussion on Dasein and look forward to other folks' comments.

    Hope this has helped
    • 0
  13. soleo added a post in a topic What does your avatar/sig say about you?   

    When Dave woke up one morning from unsettling dreams, he found himself in someone else's hand, changed into a monstrous vermin. A gigantic, ugly weta-type thing.

    He was resting on his back legs and some shapely horn, pitifully thin compared with the size of the rest of him, and when he lifted his head a little, he saw his vaulted brown belly, sectioned by arch-shaped ribs...and a bloody great carrot being jammed down his throat by an invisible, unrelenting force....

    From somewhere far away, the insect thing heard a voice. It said, I won't pronounce the name of DaveT in front of this monster, and so all I say is: we have to try and get rid of it. We've done everything humanly possible to take care of it and to put up with it; I don't think anyone can blame us in the least.

    Sufficiently satisfied with the carrot for now, the vermin-weta-type-thing at last looked up and with a sardonic grin across its ugly face cried out, Naaaaaaaaa, what's up doc?
    • 1
  14. soleo added a post in a topic A Preparatory Reading of Being & Time   

    Last thoughts on Dasein, for now...

    Before moving on to the next section, I just wanted to say a word or two on some of the terminology.

    Heidegger, P32, 12:...we should reserve the term 'ontology' for that theoretical inquiry which is explicitly devoted to the meaning of entities...then what we mind in speaking of Dasein's 'Being-ontological' is to be designated as...'pre-ontological'.

    Heidegger, P33, 13: Sciences are ways of Being in which Dasein comports itself towards entities...But to Dasein, Being in the world is something that belongs essentially. Thus Dasein's understanding of Being pertains with equal primordiality both to an understanding of something like a 'world' and to the understanding of the Being of those entities...So whenever an ontology takes for its theme entities whose character of Being is other than that of Dasein, it has its own foundation and motivation in Dasein's own ontical structure, in which pre-ontological understanding of Being is comprised as a definite characteristic.

    Heidegger, P34,13: Therefore fundamental ontology from which alone all other ontologies can take their rise, must be sought in the existential analytic of Dasein.

    Okay, so we've got number of things going on here.

    I think for Heidegger, the term:
    pre-ontology is the pre-cognitive and pre-explicit 'understanding' of things. Dasein has an idea of its own being, no matter how vague, and demonstrates an 'understanding' of other beings, through, for example, picking them up, using them, inspecting and staring at them, producing them, disclosing them to self and others, and all this without any need to draw on any explicit theory or discipline. At this most fundamental level we may call dasein's understanding of being a 'primordial absorption' (p76, 51). It is here, then, at this pre-ontological level, that all ontologies must arise, the being of dasein, its existence, reflected in all things conceived.

    ontology points to a more focused, detailed and explicit understanding of beings, something like an ology or science.

    theoretical ontology is any given discipline within the worlds of the ontology.

    ontic or ontical ontology is the understanding of the properties and substances of a given being, their 'present-to-hand' as understood by the given theoretical ontology.

    fundamental ontology will be the study of Dasein, the structural understanding of the being who makes being an issue for it. Why? Because as we have seen, all other ontologies depend on and are reflected through Dasein. Dasein, then, is the fundamental foundation of all ontology.

    Rounding up for now, then, what we get is the following superficial sketch of Dasein, of you and I, which will be given its detailed portrait as we move on through B&T.

    A Brief Sketch of Dasein

    In some fashion, we make being an issue for us, we take a stand on it, which as we have seen means for Heidegger, the way we express ourselves through our activities, behaviours and social roles, often conducted in an absorbed manner, without much thought or reflection.

    In taking up activities and behaviours and social roles, Dasein manifests an understanding of being: that of the being of other things and that of itself. So, for example, when I pick up a drill , I 'understand' the being of that drill as a hole-making-thing (a what) and I do this for some reason (my why).

    This way of using stuff is one way Dasein 'understands' being.

    But Dasein can also sit about and stare at stuff. It can contemplate things , wonder about them and try to understand their ontic composition, their properties and characteristics. This is the game of traditional philosophers and scientists and this way of being exhibits another understanding of being, namely, present-at-hand.

    So, for Heidegger, we've got three fundamental ways of being in the world:
    Dasein - the being which makes being an issue for it
    Present-at-hand - the properties, predicates, characteristics, categories of things
    Stuff dasein can use, equipment, tools, means to an end and stuff like that.

    Now, all these ways of being highlight one important feature, they're all ways Dasein has a relationship with the world. The first is the way it relates itself to itself, the second and third is the way Dasein relates to things out-there and all three are reflected through Dasein and its way of being.

    Thus, Dasein reflects its being onto all beings and so ontology must start with Dasein.

    So, being and the understanding of being - whatever it is, be it a god, an octopus, or other human - is always in terms of analogy and metaphor, always in terms of ourselves, who carry and project our being towards and onto the being of all other things.

    It follows that if we want to understand existence, ontology, what there is, the three dominant ways of being, ourselves or any other, we need to lay out the fundamental structures of Dasein which any type of intelligibility of being depends upon.

    Now this doesn't make Heidegger an idealist. He's not questioning whether there would be substances and entities and properties in existence if there was no Dasein. Indeed, it would be a little odd to figure that existence per se depended on dasein. But clearly, there just wouldn't be this type of (human, all too human) understanding we have of being without Dasein.

    Thus Being and Time is going to be an existential enquiry, an existential analytic, a book which will try to lay out the fundamental structures of existence which afterall is Dasein itself.

    I hope all this has made some sense.

    • 1
  15. soleo added a post in a topic The greatest works of comedy   

    A golden oldie for TGL:
    • 0