Thursday, February 14, 2008
Heidegger Again: Sameing
Is it that the lack of something, the disruption of our referential contexts, does not draw attention to its lack solely? I mean, our conversation tonight swayed to Othering and how “Sameing” – if I can be so bold as to coin a term for approaching-the-average-everydayness-of-your-referential-contexts (man, those hyphen words are fun) – is also a process humanity gains to define the who-I-am. But I can also apply this to the ready-to-hand -> present-to-hand transition: The lack, in its conspicuousness, draws the most attention but it may not draw all the attention. A side effect of the lack is that I re-examine my referential context – partly for the purpose I need the object’s lacking readiness-to-hand, but also because I am surprised but what is fundamentally a new referential context. I guess that too comes out of the lack but I am seeing a separation there that may or may not be valid. The impetus for the re-examination (or re-familiarization) is certainly the lack, but the re-examination can become a separate process. I guess the process is often most manifest in the search for an object Being of the same readiness-to-hand that I needed. But more than that, if I lay out my clothes for tomorrow morning and wake up to find the shirt missing, I not only look for a shirt (or the shirt depending on its importance to the outfit), but I also examine what is laid out to see anew what I have not forgotten. It seems that this later process has a seperateness from the former process, which is clearly caused by the lack. But though the lack may be an impetus for the new examination it must not be the only impetus. For instance, I can examine the referential contexts for the purpose of changing the pre-arraigned outfit.