From: "Tudor Georgescu" <tgeorgescu-AT-home.nl>
Subject: RE: prognosis vs. forecasting
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 17:32:30 +0200


> Only what is a something, more or less definite: a tree, a stone, a
man,
> a dream, a god, can be called a being (that can be).


The to be is. Otherwise we would be unable to speak of existence and
even unable to exist. Some solved this problem by saying that is no such
thing as existence. Yet reality contradicts them. To speak of things as
not being would require another type of language, maybe another type of
brain. For a dog or a goose this problem does not exist. All is revealed
and it nothing to be further known. A problem is a problem only if
translates in terms of food and hunger.

They cannot think. All is good as long as you feed them. They have no
opinions or beliefs. You can do with them every circus exercise, as long
as you know to tame them.

Happily people are not like this. Though most of the zombies you meet
everyday are not people, one in a number may really be a man. Not
dependent on will or thoughts of another.

We are not the same entity. Existence in space and time is apart, for
space-time means separated existence.

Individuality.


Become what you are!

Jethro, Priest of On



Intellect Club mailgroup at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Intellect_Club


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu [mailto:owner-
> heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu] On Behalf Of Rene de Bakker
> Sent: Friday, 21 September 2001 18:02
> To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Subject: Re: prognosis vs. forecasting
> 
> Michael Eldred wrote:
> 
> >Rene,
> >
> >I don't think that what I do with my suggested translation of
_alaetheia_
> as
> >diaphanous medium or dimension is what Plato does. Why? Because
Plato's
> idea, and
> >even the idea of the ideas, is always a characterization of the being
_of
> beings_
> >or the origin of the being _of beings_. _Alaetheia_ as diaphanous
medium
> is the
> >dimension through which the phenomena _can_ pass. It is _enabling_
> >(ermoeglichend).
> 
> But that is precisely Platonism. Agathon as the enabling. Enabling
being.
> This is already thought by metaphysics! How can something be, what it
is?
> By WHAT it is. Only what is a something, more or less definite: a
tree,
> a stone, a man, a dream, a god, can be called a being (that can be).
> (That-being/existentia over against this essentia begins
> virtually with the 'me on')
> 
> The problem with thinking something like this, is not analytical. It
comes
> down
> to see that a decision has been made already, but not by a
philosopher,
> named
> Plato etc. This decision, viz. that what-being is real being, is
hidden IN
> Plato. One
> cannot see the light, one is in oneself (the un-said and un-thought).
> All this shifting in GA 45, from the question for the Wesen der
Wahrheit
> to
> the
> Wahrheit des Wesens, and back and forth again, which is dazzling, has
> directly to do
> with this Wesen (what-being) and the Er-sehen des Wesens.
> 
> >And phenomena cannot be restricted to the self-showing of beings,
> >but encompass also the showing of beyng itself, including its
quivering
> >(Erzitterung), and including its self-hiding (the negation or un- of
> >self-showing). The self-hiding of beyng itself too needs an enabling
> dimension:
> >the openness of _alaetheia_ or the clearing.
> 
> Another transcendental reasoning. What 'is' this openness ITSELF?
> (direction: Sein ohne Seiendes)
> 
> >I recently (09-Sep-2001) cited SuZ:
> >"What is it which has to be called a 'phenomenon' in a pronounced
sense?
> >What is according to its essence _necessarily_ the subject of an
> _express_
> >demonstration? Obviously it is something that, at first and for the
most
> part,
> >does _not_ show itself, which is _hidden_ but at the same time is
> something
> >which belongs essentially to what shows itself at first and for the
most
> part,
> >and that in such a way that it constitutes its sense and ground."
> (SuZ:35)
> And
> >Heidegger wrote in the margin of his copy of SuZ to "sense and
ground":
> >"Wahrheit des Seins", i.e. "truth of being".
> >
> >This shows that the truth of being itself, i.e. _alaetheia_, is the
> phenomenon
> >that ultimately -- in its self-hiding -- has to be brought to light
by
> thinking.
> 
> "Ultimately". How do you bring something to light, that is not a
> something,
> and
> does not appear, which opposes to our light? When Being is oblivion,
> shouldn't we
> then learn to forget?
> "Active forgetting", it's also somewhere in Nietzsche (and  Deleuze?).
> Forgetting or destructing Plato. When aletheia is envisaged, it's not
> enough to
> say, that Plato leaped over it.
> 
> Rene
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------
> drs. Ren de Bakker
> Universiteitsbibliotheek Amsterdam
> Afdeling Catalogisering
> tel. 020-5252368
> 
> 
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




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