Chapter One: Thrownness
Today I got feedback from my doctoral adviser about the proposal. I'm relieved and apprehensive. I need to keep focusing my attention and get more precise about the project. I've been garbling such terms as values, symbols, shared understandings, ideals, abstractions, perspectives, interpretations, and relationships. Are any of these theoretically equivalent? How do these terms hold up to modalities of meaning?
If I'm investigating wild place meaning then I must comprehensively review how that is defined, investigated, by whom and in what way within Human Dimensions of Natural Resources (Human Dimensions will be the new shorthand because it's more palatable than HDNR.) That comprehensive review will recover the assumptions and methodologies of objective, interactive, transactive, and constructive approaches. This will make it much easier to clearly establish what interstitial modalities of wild place meaning are and are not.
Am I taking an interpretive phenomenological approach? Am I taking an onto-existential approach? Am I taking a daseinanalytic approach? My previous focus on ecologies of meaning has generated some of this confusion. I'll explain interstitial modalities of wild place meaning as best I can below. I'm not sure how typology holds itself up to modality.
I claim to interweave the concept (or idea) of wilderness in the capacity of or as being wild place, I need a diagram for the process that incorporates interstitiality, modality, wild place, being-in-the-world, understanding, constitution, significance, composition, composure, attunement, and interpretation.
Lastly for this chapter, how am I scaling up from Dasein interstitiality to cultural meaning (or style as Dreyfus might say). How do these processes hang together? How will I investigate those processes and those interstitial modalities of meaning?
Chapter Two: Fallenness
"Whatever and however we attempt to think, we think in the play-space of a tradition" (Heidegger, 2012, p. 121).
To reiterate, I need to comprehensively review wilderness place meaning. This could be challenging given some commitments made in the chapter. Maybe follow up the present review with wilderness meaning literature. Maybe present wild place meaning literature and identify gaps followed by an offering that could bridge the gaps based on my commitments.
A review of wilderness and nature embodiment would strengthen things. Make sure to distinguish wilderness experiences from embodiment. How do these ideas hold themselves up to work done in human-nature interaction or transaction?
I need to better orchestrate and choreograph the content. It's hard to follow the themes and statements harmoniously. Which came first? I stopped right there without seeing what is said. I claim equiprimodiality (Heidegger, 1962) or reciprocal presupposition (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987) for place and being (or the event of appropriation to combine these two with time). The interstial meaning arises through focal practice, that is, engagement qua composition. A composition is what is produced from composing. Composure is the style taken while composing a composition. The style is equiprimordial with the focal practice qua composition. I need to make a new model. The model needs to be animated like this one. Somehow this nearly explains everything.
I think the answer to questions like "How do we know what we're experiencing? How is meaning constructed from experience? From where do we get our language and perception? How do we see/speak the land (especially if it is pre-reflective)?" These are hard questions but I'm up to the challenge. These can be explained and diagrammed. I'm familiar with Gibson's work. It's too subjectivist. The same goes for Merleau-Ponty. Check out these quotes from Heidegger first, then psychiatrist Medard Boss summarizing Heidegger's thoughts on the bodying-forth qua Dasein because this is it.
Nevertheless, from the Da-seinanalytic perspective, it remains decisive that in all experience of the bodily one must always start with the basic constitution of human existing, that is, from being-human as Da-sein—as existing, in the transitive sense, of a domain of standing-open-toward-the-world; therefore, from this standing-open, in the light of this standing-open, the significant features of what is encountered address the human being. Because of the human being’s basic constitution, Dasein is always already related to something unveiling itself to him. In his essential receptive-perceptive relatedness to what addresses him from his world-openness, the human being is also already called upon to respond to it by his comportment. This means that he must respond in such a way that he takes what he encounters into his care and that he aids it in unfolding its own essence as far as possible. (Heidegger, 2001c, p. 231)
[A]ll bodily nature, down to the last nerve fiber, originates from, develops from, and remains contained in that unique characteristic, which cannot be derived from something else and which one must call the determination of the unfolding essence of human Da-sein. But this is precisely the totality of the nonmaterial, non-energylike capacities of understanding and comportment extending wide into the world and which fundamentally constitute Da-sein. (p. 234)
Well, yeah, so what? What's THAT mean? I can explain. I will. Now on to those commitments.
I need to clarify what holds unequivocally and what slips into noise in terms of certain things I say. And lastly. Dan Williams is, like, the dude, man. Well no, he's more like the cowboy.