File spoon-archives/blanchot.archive/blanchot_2000/blanchot.0007, message 18


Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 17:06:59 -0700
From: Christophe Wall-Romana <kitocwr-AT-uclink4.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: MB: Re: being and neuter


Dear Catweasel:

I thoroughly enjoy your reenactment of fictitious maieutic exchanges 
(although Clare is more interesting than that!), plus you use awesome 
words like portico and myceliumic, so keep at it!
This said, I'm not entirely convinced by your arguments around *is* 
(the weather example reminded me why I didn't attend a Jesuit school 
not take much pleasure in analytical philosophy). It doesn't work in 
my mind because Heidegger's being comprises things which aren't 
trivially thingish (but to onta does to), like 'worlds' (involved 
situatednesses), equipment (not just a tool, but, say, the toolness of 
an object, so that a pencil for me and the same pencil for my cat are 
two absolutely different beings), even signs (semiotic signifiers) are 
beings. Dreyfus' _Being-In-The-World: A Commentary on Being and Time, 
Division 1_ details some of these complexities.

Staging a scifi isness-viral-goo is much more to my liking than having 
to imagine the Freiburg landscape around 1933...

Best,
Christophe


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005