|
© J. Glenn Friesen 2003. |
Notes regarding WdW I, 9 1. Corresponds to NC I, 7. 2. NC substitutes ‘universal’ for ‘supra-individual.’ The Dutch 'supraindivueele' must be a mistake for 'supraindividueele.' The use of the word 'supra-individual' is here in the context of Husserl, but Dooyeweerd himself uses the same term for his own ideas. Dooyeweerd does not begin with this idea of the 'individual'; he begins with the religious Root, its fall and redemption. We need a supra-individual point of departure NC I, 60. Temporal individual subjectivity cannot really exist unless it is bound to a supra-individual order (NC I, 493). Dooyeweerd emphasizes that the supratemporal is supra-individual. He speaks of ìthe fulness of individuality that has been saved in Christ. All temporal individuality is only an expression of this fulness of individuality inherent in the religious centre of our temporal world (NC II, 418. This view of the root of humanity as supra-individual is also found in Kuyper. Dooyeweerd cites Kuyper's view that individuals do not exist in themselves; there only exist membra corporis generis humani. Christ is head or reborn humanity (NC II, 248). It is worth pointing out here that one of Dooyeweerd's disagreements with Vollenhoven concerned the nature of individuality. 3. The word 'aanzijn' is translated as 'existence' in the NC. But 'aanzijn' is a determined existence. See the discussion in another [non-dooyeweerdean] context by Börger at http://www.nikhef.nl/~a17/wd/WD_11.HTM. 'Aanzijn' is the fitting of our selfhood into the temporal reality by which it is determined. Temporal reality, the cosmos, is subject to cosmic law, which "limits and determines" our selfhood (I, 13). We ourselves in our temporal individuality are also determined by the modal dimension, part of temporal reality (II, 483). In a sense 'aanzijn' is like Heidegger's 'Dasein,' except that Heidegger does not speak of a supratemporal self beyond Dasein; he has temporalized the selfhood. For Heidegger, there is only the temporal, the 'Vorhandenes' (I, 69). Another interesting web site regarding 'aanzijn,' again from a non-Dooyeweerdean perspective, is http://www.theosofie.net/onlineliteratuur/aspecten/5a.htm, which emphasizes that 'aanzijn' is the bringing forth of forces, entities and substances from the universe. These 'unfold' themselves from within ['van binnenuit] in a kind of emanation or evolutionary reversal. This meaning to 'aanzijn' must not be ignored in interpreting Dooyeweerd. It relates to the expression of the supratemporal in the temporal, and to the limiting and determining of the law. 4. The 'reflection' of thought returns thought back not towards itself, but towards the selfhood. See the discussion of reflection in Van Eeden. Just as we are the image of God, so temporal reality, which has its existence in humanity as the temporal root, reflects this root. 5. Again, the NC mistranslates 'selfhood' as 'ego.' |
|||