I had included a number of quotes by him on my mundane babble thread. Starting here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=179454&p=2396672&hilit=umberto+eco#p2396672
Oh, and as far as I can recall, only a few mentions of dasein. For example, the very first quote. 
Don’t insult his memory by dragging Dasein into this.
I’m worried, he had a large medieval manuscript collection, a lot of philosophical works, quite rare. We had a lot of highly innovative and original thinkers in that era. He noted once in a interview hebwould get hate mail in, saying some scenes he wrote from antiquity were too modern, and vice versa… it absolutely astonished him how little the modern world understood just how modern and inventive medieval thinkers were, he saw our era more or less a continuation of their style of thinking. I have to agree in a lot of ways. I got a lot of people interested in his books, he made a pretty penny from people buying them off my recommendations.
Okay, how do you imagine that he would have reacted to the phantom “dasein”.
Then we can segue into a discussion of the differences between his rendition, Heidegger’s rendition, Aristotle’s rendition, Kant’s rendition and my own.
Here for example: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=189516
You are a horrible person. He probably died from the malaise of seeing your Dasein shit day in and day out.
Hell, damn near all of us shit day in and day out. And, with few exceptions, we wipe our own ass.
But that’s the part that has little or nothing to do with the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.
Besides, you can’t even bring the word up without attaching a Big D to it.
You know, like Heidegger.
Of course he was a Nazi.
And you follow his philosophy. Must be Dasein on your part.
True. Way, way, way back at Towson State University I did read Heidegger in Walt Fuch’s class.
But not since.
Mainly I was struck by the idea of being “thrown” at birth – [b]thrown in a purely fortuitous, adventitious manner[/b] – into a particular historical and cultural context. A particular world. And then as an individual accumulating your own set of “personal experiences” that will never, ever completely overlap that of another’s.
It dawned on me: What parts of “I” transcend this? Surely my genetic makeup, my congenital predispositions, my gender, the color of my skin, the purely demographic components of my life.
But what aspects of “I” are more profoundly embedded subjectively in personal opinions and political prejudices?
That aspect of dasein far, far more problematically embodied in contingency chance and change.
The part that revolves around, say, conflicting goods and political economy.
The part that folks like you avoid like the plague.
And, truly, what I would have given to be able to explore these relationships with someone like Eco.
Quit trolling his mortuary thread.
Ah, reduced down to calling me a “troll”
Gee, that didn’t take long. 
Yes, but how could we bring that down to earth and, oh, I dont know, reconcile it with the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of dasein and the conflicting views on trolling? Let’s explore this.
I just did:
[b][i]True. Way, way, way back at Towson State University I did read Heidegger in Walt Fuch’s class.
But not since.
Mainly I was struck by the idea of being “thrown” at birth – thrown in a purely fortuitous, adventitious manner – into a particular historical and cultural context. A particular world. And then as an individual accumulating your own set of “personal experiences” that will never, ever completely overlap that of another’s.
It dawned on me: What parts of “I” transcend this? Surely my genetic makeup, my congenital predispositions, my gender, the color of my skin, the purely demographic components of my life.
But what aspects of “I” are more profoundly embedded subjectively in personal opinions and political prejudices?
That aspect of dasein far, far more problematically embodied in contingency chance and change.
The part that revolves around, say, conflicting goods and political economy.
The part that folks like you avoid like the plague.
And, truly, what I would have given to be able to explore these relationships with someone like Eco.[/i][/b]
Trolling is but one more behavior that different folks have different spins regarding. Both in describing it and in judging it.
But then you’re no Eco, eh?
Okay, you got the contingency part down and now you have to finish what rorty started and give us a theory for solidarity. How can we as a people come to understand the manner in which we have come to understand the manner in which we explore in depth this very problem of historical and cultural contingency?
Consider this…
latimes.com/books/jacketcopy … story.html
“If there is something that we call soul, that’s memory – it makes up your identity,” Eco, 73, says, his voice twisted by a thick Italian accent and interrupted by quick, explosive chortles. “All your befores, all your afters – without memory you are an animal. You have no human soul. Even for a believer, you cannot go to hell without memory. Why to suffer so much if you don’t know why you suffer? It doesn’t make sense. If, in time, you lose your memory, there’s no meaning in paradise and no meaning in hell.”
How is memory here not relevant to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein as it relates to conflicting behaviors, conflicting value judgments and conflicting goods?
In the novel, Eco explores the nature of a life separated from its context. Antiquarian book dealer Giambattista “Yambo” Bodoni suffers a stroke and awakens from the fog of a coma to discover he has lost the part of his memory that holds personal experiences. He has no idea who he is; his wife and two daughters are strangers, and the route from the hospital to his own house is a tourist’s adventurous trek.
Again, how is the way in which I construe dasein above not relevant in this particular context? It simply explores in turn the manner in which the relationship between the “brain” and the “mind” is not fully or wholly understood. Either by scientists or philosophers.
Well yes, in a humean way. The memory gives continuity to experience, which is fundamently only a sensation… a combination of an object and an impression. In this case sensory data upon a sensory system. In this process there is nothing that is central to it all, nothing core or unchanging, no “self” that all this happens to. The sense of self is just that enduring correspondence of memories that must occur for the upper level of the frontal cortex to generate that time lapse that produces consciousness (see five millisecond rule). Being aware means to know that there is some knowing happening. The cogito is that prereflective sense of awareness that is made possible by the continuous networking of these regions of the brain. Because so many processes are happening at once the only thing that can sustain awareness is another tier of processes. Consciousness is what is made by several unconscious processes that are running in different times. Even the smallest fraction of a second can be the cause of the feeling of freewill…
But yes… I mean no…you’re right. The lack of existential identity is analogous to a case of amnesia. Its also the empiricists Locke and Hume’s basic conception of the self. Note what Kant does to get passed hume’s bundle theory of the self; the central self is a transcendent feature of the person and is known through and by the mind’s deontological sense of moral duty, as well as the mind’s ability to recognize itself in time and space… making it acausal in a way the empiricists object to. Neat trick that was; the transcendental nature of consciousness…hegel does quite a number with this idea as well.
Solidarity in regard to what? And if someone has a theory of solidarity how does she intertwine it with that which always preoccupies me: The role that philosophy might play in answering the question, “how ought one to live?”
See if you can nudge the Turd down that road. Turd seems to know a little bit about everything. But he doesn’t seem to know anything at all about dasein. Other than in assuring us that, according to Aristotle, it doesn’t even exist.
Or you can just think about it all like this: deterministically.
If all is matter and matter obeys immutable laws then everything [including this exchange] is inherently in “solidarity” with that which could only ever have been.
As for the mind measuring itself, well, science is still working on that. Experimentally for example.
What of philosophers though?
But then there are memories of things that either did or did not happen, regarding things that either can or cannot be confirmed as having in fact been true.
You have a memory of having an abortion. You either did or did not.
You have a memory of this abortion being the right thing to do. In a deontological rather than a utilitarian sense.
Someone else, however, has a memory of telling you that it was the wrong thing to do.
You either grasp the manner in which I make a distinction here or you do not.
Yes, but to what extent can all of this science then be used when the memory you have shifts from either/or to is/ought? What are the limitations of science [or philosophy] here?
With folks like Kant the common denominator here is God. Without this transcending font what does it really mean to speak of one’s moral obligation as but a “mere mortal” ?
And, to the best of my recollection, Turd digs God. But what “on earth” does that mean with respect to philosophy and any one particular human identity?
He won’t go there. It’s all [apparently] beneath him.
Also, just out of curiosity, I’d ask him why he would choose to note Eco’s “passing” in the non-philosophical chat forum?
Foucault’s Pendulum.
The best fucking novel in history about global conspiratorialism since The Da Vinci code.
(The above statement was incorrect. Can anyone spot the problem? A cookie for anyone who can.)