[RTF] MAVE Dissertation, Lancaster University 1995 Being and ... File Format: Rich Text Format - View as HTML
He calls it zuhandenheit or 'readiness-to-hand', to be distinguished from vorhandenheit - 'presence-to-hand'. The vital point is that 'presence-to-hand'... what? (good: what's the vital point?)
ok...scrolling down ~halfway. new section here... has its own epigraphs like this from Karl Marx:

The thing das Ding? *not* Sache is conceived only in the form of the object of contemplation, but not as human activity, practice. Karl Marx. that's certainly apt alongside Heidegger's distinction
In Being and Time Heidegger aims to reveal the metaphysical presuppositions of the intellectualist-subjectivistic tradition, and to undermine the western subject-object dichotomy in order to renew what he saw as the central question, that of the question of being.

In the famous phenomenological description of the craftsman hammering in his workshop in Section 15 of Being and Time. Near the beginning of this Heidegger states that 'the kind of dealing which is closest to us *well if we're lucky is... not a bare perceptual cognition, but rather that kind of concern which manipulates things and puts them to use; and this has its own kind of 'knowledge'' (1961:95, my emphasis). He calls this 'knowing' zuhandenheit or 'readiness-to-hand', to be distinguished from vorhandenheit - 'presence-at-hand'.
The vital point good is that 'presence-at-hand' presupposes or is derivative from 'readiness-to-hand'. ok good.

(To use more familiar conventional ~and to me much less wieldy for thinking, like Latinate translations of Aris~ terms: theoretical or representational knowledge presupposes and depends on the lived background of practical knowledge, which of course is necessarily embodied.)

just talking to rui about this (via him on way out of room saying Is there a present? or only Now and then I threw out bit about H vs philos interpreting Being as presence. bcs had this near-to-mind, from what? from rereading bit of Guignon the other night, yes. was planning to revisit H & problem of knowledge. who I was much impressed with, right? and in contrast to Dreyfus whose way of framing the 'problem of knowledge' makes it seem a problem I do not care about.
had Guignon out, along with Wendell Berry to take note on: poetry at center of vast reminding, on Saturday. but started with Machine, novel by P Adoplphsen, then thought-planned to read about animals as disappearing, haunting. then reviewed novels I liked Seattle-Chicago.
everything leading to everything, vast, ok.


ZUHANDENHEIT VORHANDENHEIT OBSTACLE BROKEN.DOWN - Google Search

rui familiar w this part of SZ, about things "breaking down" when do not work.
then the thing becomes conspicuous. what is the O word here? I always think there is an O word involved in H's catalog of three ways (I think) things can break down. and I go to the book and either find one that does not seem to be it or do not find one. it seems to be a word, starting with O, that means stubborn. I think of obfuscate - to darken, so that's clearly not it. I think of obstacle, now getting somewhere. obstruprious... obstreperous! that's it, or at least that satisfies the felt requirements. does H actually use it? (meaning, does MacQuarrie-Robinson render a word of his as obstreperous? )
obstreperous
resisting control yes or restraint
noisily and stubbornly yes defiant
< L obstreperus clamorous, akin to obstrepere to make a noise at (ob- ob- + strepere to rattle)