Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 12:48:50 -0700
Subject: nothing


howdy-

i'm really tied up in my personal commitments but a few comments.

i specifically want to apologize to Daniel.  i will reply to your note
daniel.  thank you for taking the time to write.  i also may find your
latest post interesting, once i get to it.

- to be honest, when shane kept asking if i thought anything was wrong, i
knew that he was referring to that little blurb on my page.  shane,
something's-wrong is a very workable way of distinguishing what H calls
anxiety (mood).  something isn't inherently wrong.  is there any inherent
meaning in the world?  i say that not in terms of "representational
thinking" there isn't.  it could be said that there is meaning in the
uncovering of relatedness.  as long as it isn't superficially ascribed by
the calculating mind.  once again, i assert that the pseudo-audible little
voice is simply the tip of the iceberg called "being the mind."  so it
isn't just doing-thinking. (little voice)  it is being grounded in the
intellect.

-i further assert that the centerpiece (haha) of this new mode of being for
human being is the nothing.

the nihil.

i'm just starting to read H's _What is Metaphysics_.  i decided to do so
before responding to daniel so as to speak in more familiar terms.

just read 2 or 3 pages and what obtrudes is H's explication of the nothing.
 the nothing isn't simply "not" or negation.  it is what is originary in a
most primordial sense.

Question:

how do ya'll stand in the nothing?


going by H's explication of the nothing.  how is it (?) accessed?  i assert
that you can "do thinking" about the nothing till our sun super-novas and
the nothing isn't accessed.  so the intellect doesn't lead to the nothing.
(at least not directly)

i would be very interested in some input.  i mean, you can study SuZ till
whenever and just simply get lost in the trees.  never find "the clearing."
 and getting lost in stuff (even the not) is all it is.   just more
intellectual knowledge.  "assimilated" into the mechanistic behavioral
system we call our identity.  but i'm sure that there are "ways" i've not
considered.

How do we get there (?) from here?

i say that it is just too easy to blow off the nothing.  after all.  it
defies logic.

once again.  i'd like to thank anthony and daniel and others for their
contributions.


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 ---