Re: philsophical background

[Michael Preston <michpres@erols.com>]

Matthias,

You kindly replied:

>Is there a way you could pass us a bit more about the essence of these
>books, the part that is important to us? I think most of us are not 
>>going to read Heidegger (as far as I know its heavy complext, isn't 
>>it?) to improve their impro.

>It could be an essay, a collection of paragraphs out of those books...
>Maybe another page on the site: "Philosophical background"? I would >love 
>that.Others would help.

Yes, I could make some notes or annotations on these books and essays.It 
is true that Heidegger's work is difficult. I was once lucky enough to 
be part of an interpretive community of fellow students that wanted to 
read big chunks of "Being and Time" line by line, pausing to discuss and 
react to passages in the text. None of us had an easy time reading it, 
mostly because Heidegger oddly structures the arguments and invents 
idiosyncratic terms in order to disclose ways of conceiving of human 
being (being human) which are not apparent under the standard and 
transparently ever-present Cartesian ways of conceiving human being. I 
don't know if reading "Being and Time" has improved my improvising, but 
it has provided a sort of alternative paradigmatically self-referential 
view or understanding of all human activity. Many of the people I read 
"Being and Time" with are artists and performers, so the discussion 
often ranged over issues of the meaning of artistic activity and 
expression. read "Being and Time" and ponder Heidegger's idea of 
"thrownness" with a bunch of fellow travellers, or a good companion 
guidebook like Hubert Dreyfus' "Being-in-the-World."

Anyway, this philosophical background page idea is a good one. I would 
like to contribute to this. It may take me a long time to come up with 
something thoughtfully produced which isn't pedantic or otherwise a 
possible bore, but I'd give it a try, especially if others will too. 

Here's a sample quote from Francisco Varela, et.al.:
"Evocations of Groundlessness:
Our journey has now brought us to the point where we can appreciate that 
what we took to be solid ground is really more like shifting sand 
beneath our feet. We began with our common sense as cognitive scientists 
and found that our cognition emerges from a background of a world that 
extends beyond us but that cannot be found apart from our embodiment. 
When we shifted our attention away from this fundamental circularity to 
follow the movement of cognition alone, we found that we could discern 
no subjective ground, no permanent and abiding ego-self. When we tried 
to find the objective ground that we thought might still be present, we 
found a world enacted by our history of structural coupling [acts of 
meaning-making emerging over time as constructions or traditions of 
conception and understanding]. Finally, we saw that these various forms 
of groundlessness are really one: organism and environment enfold into 
each other and unfold from one another in the fundamental circularity 
that is life itself." 
This quote is from the book "The Embodied Mind" by Francisco Varela, 
Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991 
(p.217).

Sometimes the jargon can get in the way, and sometimes it carries us 
forward: to a deeper understanding of what is common, or strange, or 
beautiful. 
More later.

Thankyou,
Michael Preston