File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_1998/heidegger.9810, message 55


From: "Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro" <capurro-AT-hbi-stuttgart.de>
Subject: Re: Meaning
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:29:08 +0200


Dear Greg,

our _links_ are always both ontic and ontological. If you consider your
particular link _as_ a particular one (within the realm of your
possibilities) it is your _ontic_ link. But at the same time, this is only
possible because _in general_ (or _ontologically_) we are basically open to
such real of possibilities _as such_. So if you consider your specific link
as one peculiar concretization of the ontological _structure_ of Dasein, you
can see it as ontic (and ontological) as well. Is this a good explanation?
Rafael

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: GBORGERSON-AT-delphi.com <GBORGERSON-AT-delphi.com>
An: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
<heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Datum: Donnerstag, 8. Oktober 1998 01:12
Betreff: Re: Meaning


>Dear Rafael,
>
> In your post to me on the 28th you said that the "link" between my
>brother and the chrysanthemeun was ontic.
> In your post to me on the 7th I understood you to say that the whiteness
>of the door was ontic and the meaning of the door in terms of its ready-to-
>handedness was ontological.
> I'm not sure if I correctly understoof that but if I did could you
>complete the analogy and say what the ontological aspect of my example of
>my grief at the sight of the chrysamthemun upon reflextion understood as
>missing my brother?
>
>thanks for your help,
>
>Greg
>
>
>     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005