Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 02:21:50 +0500
From: WIGMOOR FRANCIS <wwfrancs-AT-uwimona.edu.jm>
Subject: Re: encryption?


At 10:48 AM 8/5/98 -0700, Mike Staples wrote:
>henry sholar wrote:
>
>> what do you mean by encryption, Michael?
>
>Yes, this cuts right to it. I was thinking encryption as in hidden or
>not interpreted. As we know (how many times do I have to tell you this?)
>Dasein is interpretation all-the-way-down. My "assumption" is that
>encryption is that mode of being that is not interpreted (could
>certainly have this wrong). And where this comes into my consideration
>here might be framed by a couple more questions: 1) If Being does not
>have to be a metaphysics of presence, then that which is not present
>must be that which is not interpreted but is still part of Being. 2)
>What is the relationship between Being and Nothing? 

To what extent does knowledge entail interpretation?  Can we know X without
at some level interpreting X?  If we can only know X as X (or as an X), then
interpretation would seem to be imbricated in knowledge. To wit, if
something remains encrypted (i.e. beyond interpretation and hence beyond
knowledge), on what basis do we claim that it is an aspect of Being?  I need
clarification.



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