Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 21:19:33 -0800
Subject: Re: What is concealing?


Thank you Michael and Robert for responding to my questions on
concealing.  I have a much better understanding now.  

Sincerely,

Mark Hill


Michael Eldred wrote:
> 
> Cologne 07 November 1998
> 
> Mark E. Hill schrieb:
> > 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).
> 
> Mark, so far we have been talking about how beings reveal or conceal themselves
> _as such_ within the dimension of truth of being, which H. also calls the
> clearing. So it is not the case that the _dimension_ of openness is closed off,
> but rather that the dimension of openness admits both concealing and revealing,
> closure and disclosure, encryption and decryption.
> 
> > 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).
> 
> Yes, the gray area belongs to the play of truth between revealing and
> concealing. Beings can shows themselves of themselves simply obscurely, not
> necessarily on the way to concealment or revealment.
> 
> The moon can show itself clearly in a clear sky, or obscurely from behind a
> cloud, or it can hide altogether behind thick clouds, as if there were no moon
> in the sky that night. Or a big street lamp can show itself as if it were the
> moon, and thus confuse us.
> 
> > What happens to that which falls-out-of-view (i.e., the concealed)?
> 
> It is absent.
> 
> > And, can what has fallen-out-of-view come back-into-view as it was?
> 
> Perhaps, but not necessarily. To take a simple ontic example: The moon
> disappears behind a cloud at night, and reappears a few minutes later. That the
> moon reappears _as_ the _same_ moon is only possible on the basis of an
> understanding of the being of sameness. The understanding of sameness does not
> disappear and reappear but remains in view for understanding the whole time. It
> is a wonder that we can recognize the same _as_ the same. (But we say every
> month: “A _new_ moon...”)
> 
> This standing con-stancy of presencing is what is behind Plato’s experience of
> the ‘eternal’ ideas. Kant grasps this within the metaphysics of subjectivity as
> transcendental reproduction and recognition, which allows identification of the
> same as the same. What is decisive is the temporality of this play of showing
> and hiding. The open clearing for presencing and absencing, showing and hiding,
> is time-space. Presence for bodily perception is only one kind of presencing.
> Simply talking about things, for example, is a way in which beings presence
> themselves and show themselves from various angles. E.g. I here the closing Dow
> Jones index on the radio. With this announcement, Wall St. comes ontically into
> view within my clearing, although it remains far in terms of bodily presencing
> (perception).
> 
> > What is the motivation behind the coming and falling-away?
> 
> In the first place it is not a matter of motivation, but that beings as such are
> necessarily ensnared in the play of truth.
> 
> > Is this
> > where the issue of “care” comes in?
> 
> Only insofar as Dasein is concerned. Dasein's existence is an issue for it, and
> taking care of one's existence necessarily means being exposed to the play of
> truth.
> 
> The clearing of the truth of being is more fundamental than Dasein, as H. came
> to see in the turning. SuZ is still open to many misreadings in terms of
> subjectivity, i.e. in which Dasein is just another name for the subject. The
> move away from the unquestioned self-evidence of the subject’s subjectivity is
> then branded as mysticism and the like.
> 
> In SuZ H. still thought he could build some sort of bridge to the question of
> being. Later on he talks about leaping. Dasein can only be a-leapt in grounding
> the clearing of the truth of being (cf. GA65 Beitraege zur Philosophie). SuZ
> then comes to be regarded as a run-up for the leap, a transitional work,  a
> ramp, but not a bridge.
> 
> Regards,
> Michael
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-  artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
> http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ artefact-AT-t-online.de-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-_
> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
> 
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


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