As you insinuate, lots.

Despite generations of study being applied to the works of both Husserl, and Heidegger, and the great influence their ideas have seemingly had among certain intellectuals, there is no universal agreement about what all these ideas are and imply in detail, or how to properly deploy them. Though, in the case of Heidegger, doing something instrumental with his insights – which are not beyond questioning in themselves or their predicate assumptions, even when grasped – is one thing we can be pretty sure he was not concerned with.

Nonetheless, Husserl certainly aimed at a program and science of transcendental psychology; which, has apparently stimulated an enthusiasm for the notion which has been manifested in inverse proportion to its real world results.

I think a great many people are convinced they can “do something” with Heidegger (I did) ; as if his shift in perspective on the notion of being, will eventually open a kind of door to an alternate or obscured reality in which we might participate if we can just absorb the insights which will liberate us from the traditional ground/detail, subject-object framework which we have inherited as part of the western philosophical tradition, and cramps our being in the world.

Or, and this was probably more common, that he gave us a pathway to a more “authentic” life. Certainly everyone from Nazis to walleyed French sodomite philosophers, to pixie haired professional church ladies have grabbed on to this or that phrase as a kind of slogan or embryo program.

Now, the notion of making an intellectual journey back to a more primordial experience of being, promises a fascinating prospect. But I am not sure – and this is a philistine remark admittedly – that we should not have had among us until very recently, living human examples of mentalities which should according to the narrative, experience being in a pretheoretic manner.

What useful, or even interesting insights concerning the “nature” of being have anthropologists reported? Are these pretheoretic encounters incommunicable, and only to be experienced? Or do we as seems to be the idea, live with them everyday, unnoticed and asking the savage a pointless exercise.

Anyway, things become clearer as more lectures and transcripts are released in critical editions.

Trying to understand Heidegger though, on the basis of Being and Time only, before these lecture materials and late books were released, was like trying to evaluate Marx on the basis of Das Kapital, without really understanding his aims and assumptions and agenda which were more fully revealed in the EPM.

Or, so it seems to me.

–Martin Heidegger

DNW: Now that I’ve gotten my head back into Heidegger, the above is actually basic to Heidegger.

His overarching concern is to establish that the Being of a human is entirely different from the Being of a stone or a hammer (tool). Our Being is not that of stone or tool with some fancy mind or soul stuff added in, as in conventional metaphysics. That previous understanding must be disregarded for the investigation Heidegger proposes.

I could do with a little less concision.

What could go wrong?

Blattner was Hubert Dreyfus’s most brilliant Heidegger student. Dreyfus was the prof I mentioned earlier who taught Fernando Flores.

I’m working with Dreyfus’s commentary and lectures on Division I of “Being and Time,” as well as the MacQuarrie/Robinson translation, of course.

According to wiki, the Futurama mad scientist, Hubert Farnsworth, is based in part on Dreyfus.

It’s all coming together…

https://faculty.georgetown.edu/blattnew/heid/Heidegger-jargon.html

And by the way you #%!!!×#! See what you have done to me? I was up till all hours going through 35 year old worn-with-use broken spined books filled with underlinings and pages ready to fall out.

May you, my friend, be required to read all the works of Merleau-Ponty in two days and then write an original classroom essay for credit evaluating the validity of his critique of Husserl’s transcendental ego. Ha!

There is now a book on the Werner Erhard – Martin Heidegger connection in the Landmark Forum:
________________________________________________

The dialogue at work in The Forum functions to generate a language which speaks being. That is, The Forum is an instance of what the authors call ontological rhetoric: a technology of communicating what cannot be said in language. Nevertheless, what does get said allows those participating in the dialogue to discover previously unseen aspects of what it currently means to be human. As a primary outcome of such discovery, access to creating a new possibility of what it is to be human is made available.

–“Speaking Being: Werner Erhard, Martin Heidegger, and a New Possibility of Being Human”
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1119549906/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00
________________________________________________

I just ordered it.

Well, have you? –huxley

DNW: It was a joke question.

By my current understanding I’m asking if you, as a Being-In-The-World (Dasein), are inquiring into the issues of Being as only a human being (Dasein) can.

Boy, you’ve hit some hard books hard!

All my involvement with Heidegger’s philosophy has been pursued on my own as a kind of hobby-like continuation of related course work, and mostly, apart from a half watched series on YouTube, done decades ago.

That said I did classroom courses on Lebenswelt and critical philosophy and historicism covering Brentano and Dilthey and the like as the percursors to the phenomenological movement. Then, a course dedicated purely to Husserl and phenomenological, (and eventually existential) philosophy, per se. The reading load in the full blown phenomenology class was so heavy and the course work so dense and the language so unrelentingly novel, that I don’t believe I have ever been so taxed in trying to grasp the material. All my previous coursework in historical interpretation, Marxism, psychology, and Anglo-American philosophy gave me only the scantest preparation for the unremitting onslaught of unfamiliar terminology and its technical, or jargonistic if you prefer, uses. The transcendental reduction, the phenomenological reduction, transcendental idealism, epoche, eidetic image, hermeneutics of interpretation, apodicticity, ontic, ontical, ontological , on and on at 10 to a page it seemed. No wonder after reflecting on peeling the onion so many times, I was recurrently dreaming about standing on a glass floor above a glass floor above a … ad infinitum – each of which gave way if I dared to look down. LOL And then the French …. Geez

I’m a word guy and that “taking the stand” recursion entranced me, echoing as it will down the corridors of the mind.

Anyway I tracked the new, improved Landmark-speak back to Heidegger and since then I’ve been nibbling away at Heidegger to figure out where Werner was coming from.

Werner Erhard had taken up with a Chilean prodigy, Fernando Flores, who in his twenties had been high in Salvador Allende’s cabinet until the coup, then managed to land on his feet at Stanford, doing cutting-edge work in Artificial Intelligence with Terry Winograd and studying under one of the world’s top Heidegger men, Hubert Dreyfus. 

My plan is to learn enough Heidegger so I can annoy people by asking them about their eigentlich and if they have been ontological today.

Well, have you?

I’ve got that festschrift “pamphlet” at home, and, in a paragraph I deleted before posting, mentioned it, fellow thin book The Question Concerning Technology; “Was Heisst Denken”; “Early Greek Thinking”; and “The Metaphysical Foundations of Logic”, as being some of the clearer works.

I deleted that because I came to realize that apart from Sein und Zeit, most of the stuff was fairly clear in aim.

Now in the last few minutes as I prepare to leave the office, I find that there is a hidden work of his from 1937 which was only published in (in German) in 1999. Hell, several of the titles I listed were, if memory serves, only made available in the U.S. in the 1970s or after.

But since I am allowing myself to brush up here, I’ll include this outstandingly clear explanatory passage from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which I was just now reading concerning a developmental issue. As you will recall Husserl, was puzzled by the book dedicated to him, and remarked to others that it seemed not to be a phenomenological analysis so much as a work of philosophical anthropology. I agreed, when I read that.

The last sentence below, explains, in a manner Heidegger did not seem to do explicitly (so far as my long past readings and present recollection go) why that interpretation of the work as an anthropological exploration (in the philosophical sense) should be modified.

” the Husserlian notion of formal ontology (the study of the a priori categories that describe objects of any sort, by means of our judgments and perceptions) will have been transformed into fundamental ontology (a neo-Aristotelian search for what it is that unites and makes possible our varied and diverse senses of what it is to be); Husserl’s transcendental consciousness (the irreducible thinking ego or subject that makes possible objective inquiry) will have been transfigured into Dasein (the inherently social being who already operates with a pre-theoretical grasp of the a priori structures that make possible particular modes of Being); and Husserlian intentionality (a consciousness of objects) will have been replaced by the concept of care or Being-in-the-world (a non-intentional, or perhaps pre-intentional, openness to a world).