Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 17:35:36 -0700
Subject: Re: Clarity


>> i say that "this" is the heart of the matter, like a crevace, between me
>> and you all.  i hold language as "that" which grants "access" to being.
>> what you call a conceptualization is indeed so.  i've repeadedly warned
>> that my explications are merely crude maps of an undefinable reality.  a
>> wire-frame model of the actual.  but (and crucially) the "technology" that
>> enables my transformation in merely a device.  it is language in that it
>> grants being-ness.  in and of itself it is merely a device.
>
>At first glance, what you say here is not unlike what Heidegger 
>says in SuZ sections 34 and 35. There Heidegger says that language 
>(real language, the language prior to words or symbols or "mere 
>devices") is actually constitutive of the There, as what discloses 
>Being. Perhaps you can go over those sections and see whether you see 
>anything essentially incompatible with what you are saying.



i see nothing incompatable.  given the qualification that logos does not
mean judgement.  then it is ratio as H puts forth.  listen.  there are alot
of words that i use differently from H.  i make it simple and workable.  i
say that concept is *representation*.  period.  without qualification.
however when concept is self-referential then it is what-is-talked-about.
(ok educate me on tautology)  in this sense i distinguish between
"workable" technology and less workable technology.  i.e. technology as
language that discloses in the open-ness in a count-on-able fashion is
ultimately workable.  it is a calculated (technological) way of uncovering.
 rather than "less workable" in endless degrees as a technology that is a
calculated not-covering-up.  which is not the same as uncovering but is, in
fact, manipulation.

what is *apparently* independent-of-language is actually language
dependent.  e.g. mountains and chairs and hammers.  all disclosed in the
open-ness of truth by the language of Being. 



>One 
>problem I sense is your characterization of language as a technology 
>or as "merely a device." This makes me think that you are viewing 
>language not as disclosing Being not in the sense of constituting the 
>There phenomenologically, but as a metaphysical "middle step" between 
>us and the world, which grants access to the world which is 
>independent of language.



no.  no.  and no.

i am precisely looking at language as constituting the there
phenomenologically.  but not constituative of the there, as such.  the
enabling technology, as i speak of it, are vocalized distinctions.
essentially "clearings" in which what-is-being-talked-about is synthesized
(as in logos having the structure of synthesis).  logos, as in make
manifest what-is-being-talked-about.  the "distinctions" (enabling
technology) i'm referring to are constituted in speaking.

there is no independent-of-language as such.  i go further than H here in
these sections in that i say that there is a language being spoken by
Being.  precisely in the gathering of beings.  it is expressed through
beings.  it is being Being.  it is Being expressed in being.


>Heidegger restricts "technology" to modes of 
>thought which are posterior to the world already being there, and 
>therefore posterior to language in the primordial sense.


referring to the sections you pointed out.  H speaks of logos not meaning
judgement or "taking a position" by either endorsing or rejecting.  he
further warns that the logos depends on staying clear of any concept of
truth construed in any sense of correspondence or accordance.

i say the technology is the result of precisely this "kind" of problem.  it
is "taking a position."  it is accordance.  and it is correspondence.  it
is logos as "representional" speaking that results in technology.  and it
"may" be posterior to language in the primordial sense.  however it is
neither anterior nor posterior when it itself is language in the
constitutive sense.  and once again it may be ultimately workable if it
discloses in the open-ness of Being.

not all language is performative as in being itself. (eg) the word chair is
not itself a chair.  it is representational speaking.  the word promise
otoh is itself a promise.  i promise is a speech performative.  in the same
way the technology or distinctions i refer to are ultimately speech
performatives.  but very importantly, they are useless and worthless
without "the nothing."  without completion they are sterile.  so first a
transformation in our grounded-ness is what is required.  


>So for 
>Heidegger, language does "produce the result" in the sense that it is 
>constitutive of the There


as do the distinctions (a repeatable, count-on-able technology) that are in
question.  they in themselves are not constitutive of the there.  they
constitute the there.  they give rise to the there.


>but in this sense, language is no longer 
>"merely a device," because a "mere device" is opposed to what is "not 
>merely a device," or what is "really and naturally there" if you 
>will.


no.  more intellectualization.  the technology i speak of is simply spoken
speech and in that speaking, what is spoken about is made manifest.


>That is the posterior sense of language - as some conventional 
>construct by which we "access" the world that is there prior to 
>language, as opposed to language in the sense of what is prior to 
>such a device, as constitutive of the There itself.


the device is language.  i was clear in saying that.  it is not posterior
to language.  it IS language.  i AM SAYING that language gives rise to the
there.

more misunderstanding no doubt rooted in that when i say
what-is-spoken-about i don't necessarily mean spoken about in speech like
english or german. (it could be english or german)  but i do mean language.
 in anycase the technology i'm concerned with is spoken speech as "clearing."

Being "shows itself" in the being of the chair (eg) as the chair's being an
open-ness for a particular possibility of Dasein's existence.

saying and being are the same once completion is complete in the open-ness
of Being.  but completion MUST be complete.


Robert T. Guevara   | guevara-AT-rain.org
Electrical Engineer | guevarb-AT-mugu.navy.mil
Camarillo CA, USA   | http://www.rain.org/~guevara


     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---