Activity

(Part II of response to BlakeC’s question regarding Heidegger)

If what Heidegger means by “questioning” is inquiry then I agree. It appears that he wishes to make it explicit to the reader that a, lacking a better term at this point, formal inquiry is being initiated and that this inquiry would be best accomplished if one were to approach it with a particular point of view toward the object of the inquiry. The POV he suggests is that of a “free relationship”. Not knowing Heidegger well I am guessing that he wants the inquiring mind (not sure here whether he means mind with a small m or large M) to be able to be open to all of the potential meaning that “technology” might potentially contain in order to be able to perceive and understand it in as broad a sense as possible. I say this in that he continues, “ … , we shall be able to experience the technological within its own bounds.”

The opening sentence of the next paragraph reads, “Technology is not equivalent to the essence of technology”. What follows appears to be a caution that one’s experience of any particular instance of an object (a material representation {iconic?} ) is not (necessarily?) to experience the ideal representation of the object (in this case the object he is calling “technology”).

This is why inquiry is best not attempted via Twitter. 🙂

The next sentences I read as saying that to simply “go along” with technology, and by this I am guessing that he means the “effects” of technology in so far as they slowly begin to co-opt one’s “way of life”, is to be in a position of observation (a key element of inquiry) relative to the object such that one’s observation of it can not be separated from one’s (egotistic) self. This is one way in which one might be said to be in an “unfree” (by unfree here I am guessing that he means the inability to have as an objective view as possible) relationship to it.

All of this to set the context for the remainder (Part II) of my response to BlakeC’s fish slapping (see Monty Python’s Fish Slapping Dance, https://youtu.be/T8XeDvKqI4E) and yes folks this is pretty much an accurate visual representation of what passes for philosophical discussion. As usual I work under the curse of fallibility … I could be wrong. Read, torture, and chastise as you see fit.