The idea of this presentation is to begin with and utilize the threefold structure in existence as presented in Being and Time by Martin Heidegger.1 If we start from care we cannot go beyond the structural unity. If we begin with the ontological foundation, temporality,2 which constitutes this unity, it is possible to bring to light the meaning of care.3 As Heidegger would say the ontological meaning of care is temporality.
The clarity of thought presented in Being and Time can be displayed in this precise way: Structure in Existence; being-ahead-of-itself; being-already-in-a-world; being-alongside. Three Dimensions of Temporality; the projecting of what is to come; the taking over of what has been; the present, waiting-towards. Structure of Care; possibility; facticity; falling.
As a power to be, Dasein (Being-there) is already ahead-of-itself in its Being. It is the potentiality-for-Being which cares. This potentiality-for-Being lets Dasein come towards itself in its Being- alongside. The future comes toward oneself projectively in an existentiell4 possibility, it does so as a coming-towards-oneself out of that possibility as which Dasein exists. Projection throws itself into a possibility. A potentiality-for-Being is projected in the horizon of the future, dis-closed in the horizon of Being-already-in, discovered in the horizon of Being-alongside.
The threefold structure in existence as Dasein ahead-of-itself, already-in-a-world, alongside which I utilize and take up in my own way can be displayed on a time-line. It can be displayed in this way: ahead-of (future); behind (past); alongside (present).
For this presentation I will utilize ahead-of, behind, alongside as the structure in existence. This structure in existence displays three dimensions of temporality: the projecting of what is to come; the taking over of what has been; the present, waiting-towards.
Now, the threefold structure of care, for Heidegger, follows as possibility, facticity, falling. Possibility is Being-ahead-of. Facticity is Being-already-in. Falling is Being-alongside. Falling can be inauthentic, what I call concern, as awaiting the future and authentic as waiting-towards the future, which I call care. If the present is held in the authentic temporality, which is authentic itself, we can speak of, as Heidegger would say, the moment of vision. I like to think that there is a possibility of caring for persons and for things it is concern.
If we consider Heidegger’s positive modes of solicitude such as, leaping-in and leaping-ahead-of, we can open this further. Leaping-in is a stripping away from. Although somewhat positive, we could call this red-crossing, it is a taking away of one’s possibilities. Whereas, leaping-ahead-of is a giving back one’s ownmost possibilities.
Now, if we take into consideration, as Heidegger would say, we are a being-in-the-world-with-others, caring can be displayed on a primordial ground as a self-to-be-with-others. If, say one were leaping-in, stripping away another’s experience, this would be what I call a reaction not a response. Leaping-in would be when mother presents Johnny with an imperative: pick up your toys and put them away! Now, just picture this: Johnny is dragging his feet moving slower than slow. In comes mother who begins picking up the toys. A reaction, would be red-crossing, although somewhat positive, it takes away, it is a stripping from the other.
One can get pulled off of one’s stance caught up in the energy that the other is currently residing in. When one absorbs the other or when one is absorbed this would be an emotional infection. With emotional infection one is driven wildly like the leaves before a storm. Whereas, a response, based upon responsibility, which involves a choice, is positive, it is a leaping-ahead-of to give one back one’s ownmost possibilities. This is caring. Caring is sharing,5 a dialogue upon the ground of inbetweenness.6 Self-worth is developed by caring and sharing. Involvement, says Mary-Rose Barral, is another word for Care.7
Inbetweenness is the ground upon which meaning is constituted. Each person constitutes meaning. Together we co-constitute meaning, which is, upon a ground of inbetweenness, where each participates. Each gives to the other.8 This means that there is an openness, a being present, which allows for closeness, where each can be. Care, says Thomas Langan, is the atmosphere in which Being is revealed because Dasein is open to what is real.9 This is not a leaping-in which dominates, it is a leaping-ahead-of which liberates. It is a freeing for one’s ownmost possibilities. Closeness transcends. Closeness implies caring which allows the other to be. This would be to emerge from the possibility from that which one is already-in. Caring is dis-closing of possibilities rather than closing-off which is a taking away. Caring is not an attitude towards the self as it is already-Being-ahead-of-itself.
That which one is already-in is the behind. It is the having-been as Heidegger would say. The behind, is Being-behind.10 It is supportive. In relation to the other it is Being-behind. Behind is Being at one with one’s words and actions. I cannot experience your experience, your suffering or confusion but I can be supportive of you, of what you are going through. It is possible to be supportive without knowing where one has come from or where one is going.
The human being exists, stands out,11 is open to and responsible for what it is. Response implies a di-stance. Di-stance is qualitatively both nearness and farness. It is being-one’s-own-beyond.12 It is a unity-of-opposition. As Heidegger would say, temporality is the primordial outside-of-itself in and for itself.13 The authentic present as the moment of vision is an integral constituent of Being. It stands out.
If I can attend to the other in a responsible way, I will respond. This is Being-responsible. Whereas, reaction is not. To respond in a caring way is to utilize what I call disciplined spontaneity. If you are Being-there you do not have to think up what to say. Dialogue, says Jansuz Kuczynski, is meant to result in arriving at the truth.14 In teaching one can have in view what the other is going through, that is, the affective state and rather than scattering the other’s possibilities by leaping-in one is given to leaping-ahead with understanding. Teaching as Being-with: Caring itself is ahead-of, behind, alongside. Put simply: one understands oneself projectively in an existentiell possibility. Care itself is the ground upon which values are found.
Notes
1) Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), p. 24l, 364.
2) Ibid., pp. 370?80, 385?89.
3) Ibid., p. 376, 40l.
4) The word existential means the universal structures of human existence and existentiell means the particular existent.
5) This is a theme of The Salvation Army.
6) Sunnie D. Kidd, “Music: An Intersubjective Duree? Migrant Echo, IX, no. 3 (September-December 1980), pp. 130?33. Inbetweenness is spiritual and between is physical.
7) Mary-Rose Barral, “Responsibility and Commitment Today?Akten des XIV Internationalen Kongresses für Philosophie Wien 2-9 September 1968, p. 11.
8) The Writing Caruso, “Give suggestion not advice.?The idea here is if one gives suggestion the other is free to choose. Whereas, if one gives advice the other is stripped of one’s ownmost possibilities. To give advice is to set oneself up against the other if the other does not follow.
9) Thomas Langan, The Meaning of Heidegger: A Critical Study of an Existentialist Phenomenology (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), p. 126. An act of personal engagement, says Langan, a self-extension, roots the possibility of every act. Ibid., p. 215.
10) Take careful note here that Dasein cannot get behind its thrownness. Dasein projects its possibilities into which it is thrown.
11) Standing out of our existence is standing-in-the-world-with-others.
12) Cf. Ludwig Binswanger, Grundformen und Erkenntnis menschlichen Daseins (Zurich: Niehans, 1942). Cf. Medard Boss, Psychoanalyse und Daseinsanalytik (Bern: Huber, 1957). Binswanger claims that the structure of care can vary in individuals. Whereas, Boss claims that the structure of care is invariable and individual differences are viewed within it.
13) Heidegger, Being and Time, op. cit., p. 377.
14) Janusz Kuczynski, Dialogue and Universalism as a New Way of Thinking (Warsaw: Warsaw University, 1989), p. 332.
***
 |
 your view
After reading this
article, please let us know what you think. We'll post the most
interesting comments.
send your RESPONSE
|
(2003)
