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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005