Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 16:14:59 -0700
From: Mike Staples <mstaples-AT-argusqa.com>
Subject: Re: Meaning


GBORGERSON-AT-delphi.com wrote:

> Dear Micheal and Micheal,
>
>         Does Heidegger address the aspect of individual meaning. That
> is the
> personal meanings of an enitity to the individual. ie the personal
> meanings
> that I might experience when I read a work of fiction that to which my
>
> friend says "wow, I didn't get that out of the book, I got this"
>
>         Is this level of meaning an extension of Micheal E's wonderful
>
> response to Micheal Staples?

Hi ya!! Long time no see! I know what yo mean here. I think you and I
are talking about the difference between meaning as an indicator that
points to something (i.e., the meaning of the red light is to stop), and
meaning as singificance (this bowl of grandma's has great meaning for
me). In the first instance meaning seems to speak of correspondence, as
with signifier and signified. In the scone instance meaning seems to
point more toward the "as" structure about which Heidegger speak. There
is always this division, it seems, between being and beings, ontological
and ontic, disclosedness and correspondence and, perhaps, in as
inclusion and in as involvment, meaning as signifier and meaning as
signficance. Seems also that the more I look at all of these pieces and
parts of Heidegger's thesis, the more I see the pieces and parts fuse
together. This "clearing" business is an example. There are so many
terms Heidegger uses to refer to the same idea...there is lichtung as
clearing, and Da (as in Dasein) as clearing, and appropriation, or
Ereignis, and in the Heraclitus lectures he is even (maybe) going for
the term "Lightening" to indicate the same. Do you think so? Do you
think Michael E's responses contradict my thoughts about meaning?

Michael S.



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