From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-flash.net>
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 21:26:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Clarity


Robert wrote:

> >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.

If I am reading this rightly, then I fail to understand what you meant when you 
criticized Heideggerians for their anti-technological stance. When Heidegger 
speaks of technology, he is referring to what is posterior to language. If you are 
calling something prior to that technology, then you are simply using the word 
differently when you refer to that. The disagreement would therefore be merely 
semantic.

Anthony Crifasi


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