Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Gary E Davis
philosophical writer
philosophical writer


Post has attachment
LIke me, follow me—meh

I don't bother to notice. But I got a Facebook message indicating that my Heidegger Page had passed 4,000 likes. Actually, it has over 4800 "Follows."

And my Habermas Page has over 4,000 "Follows."

So, a discussion of how Heidegger and Habermas are commensurable (notwithstanding Habermas's "required" misreading of Heidegger) would interest at least 8,800 persons around the world.

Now, doesn't that give you warm fuzzies?

For me, my confidence in there being commensurability is a happy thing.

Post has attachment
astute reasoning and fake views

There's nothing pretentious about my notion of astute reasoning. It's simply a more-holistic pragmatic than what's called "critical thinking" in professional education (K-12 curriculum and undergraduate general requirements).

But also the matter for me is that the normal academic sense of criticism lacks a progressive basis for itself that can serve post-critical thinking. Particularly, "critique of ideology" that romances Negative Dialectic is so 19th century. Habermas left that behind in his mid-century years.

The discussion linked here is a very practical venture, motivated by the early-May appearance of a NYTimes article (which I lost interest in discussing). I believe that this provides a good example of bridging topical issues with conceptual interests (albeit my species of conceptual engagement).

Post has attachment
about "legitimating values between religions"

A person at my Facebook/Habermas Page comments “I would love if you would argue your case of ‘legitimating values inbetween religions’ a little more, because it's very difficult to hold the point of rationality today.”

Agreed, about the difficulty. We need a living sense of values that holds sacred a humanitarian, humanistic fidelity to our shared humanity....

[The posting is continued at the G+ link, bottom here. But a better version has been posted at "discursive living":]

Not indicated in the Facebook posting is that I live a Heideggerian Habermasian view that's basically post-both—if I may humbly so claim (which I don't overtly do, usually).

• Habermasian Studies:

• Heideggerian Studies (overtly introductory for folks):


So it goes with having fun (which is the purpose of life, right?):

Post has attachment
valuing genuine elitism

There can be an objective basis for valuing—for preferring one stance over another (as Hilary Putnam claimed, late in life—though I don't base my views on his).

But the posting I link to below isn't about technicalities. It's about contributing to educational democracy in little ways, as one can.

After all, it's seas of "littles" (like votes) that make history.

Vote Democratic this November.

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
G+ here was a supplement to "discursive living" (below).

Maybe this will become active again. I've said the above before, but a couple of postings got added, and I want the one line above to be at the top of the G+ page.

I'm just not a babble world kinda guy, I guess:
• I don't use Twitter, but have the account:
Want me to tweet you regularly?

• Facebook...(sigh):

Eventually, I'll make time to create "collection" folders here for routing away postings. That will make use of this site more...useful.

Does it matter? Normal blogging is better—sans serif font is /so/ boring, right?
But I don't do normal:

I'm easy to contact:

Be well.

Post has attachment
“To be clear, this was reality, not ‘SNL.’”

That’s a line in the Washington Post article about last night's episode of Saturday Night Live, linked below. Clarity is good.

Getting to the clearing may be difficult for some sensibilities; e.g., seeing the unbearable uncanniness of one’s ordinariness (not to mention the unbearable persistence of viciousness, etc.)

In the clearing—which is hallmarked by living in a liminality of appearance and so-called “reality”—one may be often compelled by others to live as if there's no clearing, i.e., as if appearance and “reality” are the same—which is to say (with such others): The difference isn't open to question by others because proffered difference doesn’t make sense to others. “The” difference can’t be sensibly framed with others, in order to evaluate a phenomenon as invalid.

Of course, a possible difference is always an option (in principle, all would admit), even to those who deny the difference for situations at hand. So, such folks must enforce a “nonsense” of the question, as if questioning is an infidelity or disloyalty (or sin).

I love the liminality—the betweenness—of en-stancing (i.e., “setting up” as stance, as in rhetorical genuineness) and en-framing (or making questionable). Paradigmatic of this is finding everything worthy of being in quote marks—or a person living in wide-eyed nonchalance toward uncanniness or bizarreness of ordinary incomprehension—better yet: living in a hidden state of deadpan humor toward humorless ordinariness (what Nobelist Paul Krugman, thinking of some economists, likes to call The VSPs: the Very Serious People, as in: True Believers).

Heidegger knew what it was to live with being caricatured as “Heidegger” among literal-minded academics who had no idea that he considered himself to be living theater (which is what a rhetorical modality—basic to Heidegger’s teaching of teaching—implies, i.e., displaying events of appropriation in talk about such): “being” Heidegger in questions of being.

I’m confident that his sense of politics was such that he would have enjoyed Saturday Night Live in our authoritarian Moment.

Of course, if one played that way in Moscow—e.g., parodying Vladimir as gay—one could get jailed. Likewise, I suppose, in any locality of Germany in the 1930s, if one had Attitude toward brownshirts (or enjoyed Charlie Chaplin playing the little dictator—”Look at his hands!”).

People who flourish know how and when to keep their Attitude private.

By the way, technologization of humanity, where simulacrality becomes naturalized as What There Is (Twitter Nation, let’s say), is not basically characterized by there being enframing. Enframing is part of cognitivity. Rather, The Simulacrum is hallmarked by forgetting the difference (or, sinisterly: suppressing the difference) between validity (genuine phenomenality) and invalidity (phoniness).

And The Simulacrum forgets/suppresses the difference between self expression and situated stance (presence as actor —which pertains to all action!). The Simulacrum erases enstancing and enframing in the world of Mister Natural.

In the world of Mister Natural, logos is reduced to ethos (i.e., the differece is “nonsense”: ethos is inflated to logos; the two are "the same"). And that Indifference conceals the improvisationality (poiesis) of there being phenomena taken for granted in their bearing.

So, voilà: I’ve troped a bridge between Saturday Night Live and Heidegger’s notion of Ge-stell.

Welcome to an interpersonal truth of “phenomenology” which Husserlian objectivism toward phenomena couldn’t make sense of: being with each other as resonance of there being enstancing (denied of oneself?) and enframing (prohibited?).

Further reading, from something "old," I recall—in case you don't have better things to do: "originary flow, conceptual design, and concerted cultivation"

Post has attachment
Habermas studies project

I hope that the work I do with respect to Jürgen Habermas is useful to others. But it hasn't occurred to me to promote it, as part of many kinds of projects that engage me. And that will continue to be the case, I guess, because I don't want to take time to think about that. (Maybe I need an agent).

What matters is the quality of the work, and that's not for me to judge; only to continue doing the best I can, which requires working at my own pace.

But I guess it wouldn't be too intrusive to try to get into the habit of posting notes here about new things that become available; and being regular about it.

Post has attachment
The Bexit vote is not legally binding

Everything I’ve read about the chaos now of the Brexit vote pertains to coping with the result. I’ve seen nothing in the leading press that indicates that anyone has good reason to believe that the Brexit vote is good for Britain.

Something to think about.

Post has attachment
What makes one argument better than another?

Here on the Left Coast, my view about “Brexit” couldn’t matter less to a Brit—not that I presume any Brit reads here. But it’s worth noting that, after the issue was debated by the storied Oxford Debate Union last week, the audience voted 227 to 79 for “In.” On their side is the International Monetary Fund, the central banks, the UN—and the betting markets. But the people? Hey, that’s populism for you. Do the most intelligent, high-principled and better informed views deserve to prevail?

Today’s posting steers away from all of that, to muse generally about persuasion.
Wait while more posts are being loaded