> On Jun 2, 2016, at 5:26 AM, Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> wrote: > > To cut a long story short… it all revolves around knowing how to be. To those > familiar with Heidegger, Dasein is the closest analogy to what I have in > mind. For those familiar with CS Peirce, pragmatism relates.
Yes, Heidegger’s phenomenology engages with a lot of background practices and other types of things rather than just what normally goes under consciousness. In that regard his phenomenology in some ways is much more like the role experience plays in Peirce. People, like the original list originator Joe Ransdell, argue against Peirce as a phenomenologist. But most of his critiques apply more to Husserl styled phenomenology rather than what comes later. That said the type of question of being that Heidegger does seems largely absent in Peirce. http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/ransdell/PHENOM.HTM To the point about how different must one be to have a different state of being, I think it depends somewhat. The Peircean answer would most likely be in terms of continuity. That is the way of being of two twins raised in the same how is quite close. The way of being of a person raised in an educated middle class home in the 21st century west is quite different from someone raised in more primitive conditions thousands of years ago. Yet they’re still similar. To borrow Nagel, move towards what it’s like to be a bat and the difference is enough that we’d call it a great difference.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
