Subject: RE: What is concealing?
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:26:56 -0500


Mark:

I always find the hermeneutical or interpretive tack is the best way to
understand the relationship between the concealment and unconcealment of
beings.  One is never without the other: there is no unconcealment without
concealment (and not a continuum as your post would suggest).  Indeed
unconcealment requires concealment.  I say an interpretive model, the model
is Heidegger's and he would ascribe it to Being, because when we interpret
we necessarily bring certain matters into the foreground while occluding
others (that is in fact how we interpret).

Regards,

_________________
Robert Moskal
Most Media
http://www.mostmedia.com
Brooklyn, USA

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> [mailto:owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of Mark E.
> Hill
> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 1:51 PM
> To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Subject: Re: What is concealing?
>
>
> Michael:
>
> Thank you for your response to my question on the issue of
> "concealing".  Could I conclude the following from what you have
> said?
>
> Concealment is a form of precluding the dimension of openness (i.e., a
> closing-off).
>
> And, the gray-area between that which is revealed and that which is
> concealed is a part of the revealing/concealing (i.e.,
> coming-into-view/falling-out-of-view).
>
> What happens to that which falls-out-of-view (i.e., the concealed)?
> And, can what has fallen-out-of-view come back-into-view as it was?
>
> What is the motivation behind the coming and falling-away?  Is this
> where the issue of “care” comes in?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mark Hill
>



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