Subj:	Book reviews etc.
Date:	99-05-04 14:19:39 EDT
From:	Anilmitra
To:	Joanelk
CC:	Anilmitra

Hi Joan

Of course, however, your reviews will help me...(1) even if I am aware of the general topic there will be specific
ideas that are new or forgotten, (2) as a spur to think either in sympathy or by reaction, (3) if the theses of the
books just reviewed have merit then as a social being I enter into having a mind by interacting with others...

Your review reminds me, also, how far I have come not so much in a sense of knowing a variety and integrity of
material...but in a sense of my relation to the world of understanding.

The writers have in common that they eschew certain old ways of looking at the world...cause and causality as
superstition, science over commonsense in some ways...implying of course that somewhere, maybe something in
this book, is an achor of objectivity of reality of truth of the final path to understanding

Heidegger says that there is no final anchor no final leverage point...and this he says is the weakness of
classical metaphysics. Though classical metaphysics and the classical metaphysicians are perhaps somewhat deeper
than that I agree, of course, with the "no fulcrum" idea. I referred to that idea in "Being and the Elements of
Being" in the preface when I referred to there being no final lens - metaphorically - through which vision becomes
exact. B/E then turned that argument "on its head" and viewed "no anchor" as strength not weakness...meaning that
the reason there is no anchor is that we are totally in the world and of the world...centered there if only we
would see...making the questions of a final metaphysics, a final rationality, a scientific objectivity, a hard or
soft headed commonsense moot. Much of intellectualizing and social activity relates to, I think, creating the
power-alienating illusion of a final science...

Avoidance of contamination of science by everyday thought is a big movement...in cognitive science it is the
criticism of "folk psychology"...John Searle addresses this criticism [criticizing the criticism] in his work.

Another example of my remove from the intellectual scene...the reference to an ideal of "love". I have come to view
the issue as follows. This is based on my own experiences with life, my work place where we help keep afloat people
who would otherwise may be sink - we'd all sink without our being in the world - and reflecting on why we keep them
afloat - is it so they can be specimens of our concept of clinical health...or is it so that even though their
organic or other incapacitations prevent them from fully contributing the economic scene that at least they can
experience life and live? From these points of view I come to a place where I see "love" etc. not as something to
be defined or clarified by philosophy or folklore - which attempt then puts a stamp on the thing which people then
try to live out not realizing that they may already have what it is that they seek - ... love is what already
exists between people before it is sought to be defined ... two mental health clients found in bed are in love,
in an incestuous abusive family there is love - this is not meant to condone anything or to say laws against these
things are wrong...but probably, when along with the enforcement of the law we deny that there is also love in a
warped relationship we also deny our own potential to be in love which is maybe not too different from being
totally in the world.

This point of view thus expressed is also limited because clarification helps and sustains enjoyment. Yes, yes
this sounds a little "existence before essence" - like…but is saying, in recognition of the merit of an idealism
that it is neither existence nor essence is prior nor do they need placement or final clarification.

Next door neighbor Susan is at my doorstep having been invited for coffee...talk to you soon.

"love" and love
Anil