Penoyer, Glenn Sterling
Dr. Glenn Penoyer holds a Ph.D. from the University of Lancaster in England, a Masters degree from McMaster University, Canada and a B.A. (Hons.) from the University of Toronto, Canada. Dr. Penoyer’s other education and prolonged studies include the work of the analytical psychologist Carl Jung, as well as both land and underwater archaeology.2005 0-7734-6074-8
What is the relationship between the phenomena of being asleep and being awake and Heidegger’s formulation of the question of the meaning of Being as presented in Sein und Zeit? Careful and meticulous thought and research must precede even an initial answer to such a question. Two major difficulties stand in the way of anyone who wishes to become involved in such a query. First, the paucity and neglect of both information and research on the phenomena of being asleep and being awake, in general, leaves one bereft of an initial direction(s) to follow, let alone to compare another method of investigation with Heidegger’s own. Second, internal to Heidegger’s own work, there is little reference to the phenomena of being asleep and being awake. Indeed, as will be found, there is direct evidence that shows that a phenomenology of being asleep (and thus indirect evidence of a phenomenology of being awake) has never been done. Consequently, although these two major difficulties present themselves, there must also be a recognition of the rich potential analysis of the phenomena of being asleep and being awake as well as the undoubted acknowledgement of the originality of such research. If our present thesis is seen in this light, we must understand such a thesis is but a prolegomenon to future work. A detailed study must be instigated that will enable us to lay a firm basis from which other Heideggerian texts will be analysed. Such an approach will hopefully also open investigations into other disciplines of thought. More specifically, the present thesis, in attempting to lay such a foundation, not only will endeavour to define the relationship between asleep and being awake with Heidegger’s thought, but also will begin to bring to light major questions with which to confront Heidegger by way of asking whether Heidegger has defined those basic phenomena which go into the making of Dasein’s structural wholeness and overall unity. This will allow us, in future work, to discern if Heidegger had indeed been able to ask the question of the meaning of Being to the degree that he deemed possible.