gedavis.com home page buttonheidegger studies
    notes of language
Intelligence of Earth is evolving

gary e. davis
  August 6, 2015
   

July 4 2015

When one refers to the “language of music,” one isn’t suggesting that music is linguistic. Likewise with the “language” of other arts, the “language” of mathematics, the “language” of architecture, the “book” of life (genomics).

In fact, we require a comprehensively semiotic sense of denotability (susceptibility to denotation by ability to denote) to fairly comprehend “language,” i.e., the meaning of ‘language’ (single quote-marked lexical item and double quote-marked allusion to common meaning).

The language of mentability (ability to mentalize) is intelligence. (“Language of thought” notions are tenable via cognitive science.) Comprehensibility is cultivated—educated, individuated, achieved. Intelligence is, basically, not something innate. It’s cultivated. We are developmental lives.

And “being”: What’s being, re: ‘being’?

Suppose it’s whatever you think it “is.” That is, it is a reflection of your comprehensibility so far. Presence? There being a present of presencing (according with your sense of things so far).

Is that subjectivism? No. It's developmentality.

So, to understand “the” meaning of being, conversation would be good. Tutorial (which would be a mirrorplay) will bring us to better understand what being is [to-and-for you, with you]. Or your extended pathmaking—individuation, self reflection, etc.—may serve you well enough.

Are you happy with how things are going?

You want to know the meaning of being?—for all and everyone?

Well, we can talk about why you want that. We can talk about the cultural-evolutionarity of comprehending. We can talk about the history of desire: historicity of a life in the historicality of our times.

“Language is the house of being,” evolving.

Be well.


August 6, 2015

The above text was a posting at the Facebook/Heidegger project, a posting which I’ve deleted because I want to reserve the Facebook project for promotion of Heidegger’s work or for defending his views and activities. I’m deeply into a 21st century project which I want to keep distinct from direct engagements with his works/ways, for the sake of advocating appreciation of his own accomplishments relative to their times.

I’ll later elaborate notions above. Those statments and these
—this entire page—will be replaced (but with the same title and URL). For the meantime...

Fair appreciation of Heidegger’s Project requires understanding “language” as indicated above. But that isn’t obvious in his work, e.g., throughout On the Way to Language, given that he was working before cognitive science as such had emerged. Kant was an 18th century cognitive scientist, some argue (e.g., Patricia Kitcher). Yet, that couldn’t be said in the middle of the 20th century. Heidegger unwittingly provided insight for a cognitive science that couldn’t be tenably anticipated while he was alive. But that’s not to imply that cognitive science provides fundamental insight into Heidegger’s ownmost thinking. His sense of language was as rich as the sense of reason and logic in the history of “beyng,” but the sense of linguisticality in cognitive science that is beyond linguistic is its own matter. Bridging that may be tenably done, I think, but isn’t yet done by anyone. (Mere critique of cognitive science isn’t likely constructive.) Anyway, understanding Heidegger’s “language” in terms of the Linguistic Turn is invalid, I will argue.

So, going back to Kant isn’t implied by my comment, except vis-à-vis those who are attracted to Kant (a common matter for philosophical therapeutics vis-à-vis cognitive science itself! But a therapeutics that doesn’t open ways to constructive appreciation and evolution of the enterprise call for a new level of therapeutics). Post-metaphysicalist cognitive science belongs to thinking beyond Heidegger, yet thereby—I would argue—belongs to evolving a post-metaphysicalist, inter-domainal, philosophical—in a tenable sense—and scientific humanity. Heidegger was not anti-scientific, nor anti-technological—not anti-modern. (He was anti-scientistic, anti-technicist, anti-technocratic.)

Obviously (to me), a worthwhile fruitfulness of “thinking beyond” isn’t likely to be original. But his career after 1948-or-so was devoted to facilitating futures ofEreignis.” How that goes well for our own times is for us to find, design, and cultivate. Challenges here—in light of highly aspiring—are at least fruitful for learning, which never ends anyway.

  This page is also associated with:
good thinking main page
     
 
    Be fair. © 2015, g. e. davis.