File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0302, message 175


Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:27:40 +0000
Subject: ontic/onto
From: michaelP <michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk>


> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3128441260_1670072_MIME_Part

on 18/2/03 6:23 pm, Anthony Crifasi at crifasi-AT-hotmail.com wrote:

> You are making the same error over and over again - mistaking
> the ontological for the ontic. You are doing the same thing here with
> anxiety that you did before with mitdasein. When are you going to stop this
> continual perversion of Heidegger on this, a Heidegger discussion group?

Anthony, I think you are correct in your judgement, but, whilst I am
attempting to rub out a tiny piece of dirty mark from my pristine iMac
whilst trying to think this through, I also think the question: how possible
is ontological speech? I mean, ontical speech is speech about beings, and,
one might suggest, ontological speech is speech about being (the being of
beings, the be-ing of beings, the thinging of things, the appearing of
appearances, etc). But, can one speak of being like speaking of beings?
Articulate rational speech demands a subject (topic) about which to speak; a
being or a category of beings, or even all beings, the totality of beings...
etc. But, being is that to which we (insofar as we speak at all, are
philosophic speakers) are sub-ject (since we are beings too); thus speaking
of being as a topic is inevitable but irrelevant, thus, ontological speech
is impossible in the sense of articulate rational speech about some thing
(since being is not a thing). Rather being bespeaks us even as we speak of
beings (i.e., ontically). So, what in hell is ontological speech? Can we
speak of that which we are in the grip of even as we speak of some thing,
some being or beings, some thing(s) that we get a grip on?

regards

michaelP


--MS_Mac_OE_3128441260_1670072_MIME_Part

HTML VERSION:

ontic/onto on 18/2/03 6:23 pm, Anthony Crifasi at crifasi-AT-hotmail.com wrote:

> You are making the same error over and over again - mistaking
> the ontological for the ontic. You are doing the same thing here with
> anxiety that you did before with mitdasein. When are you going to stop this
> continual perversion of Heidegger on this, a Heidegger discussion group?

Anthony, I think you are correct in your judgement, but, whilst I am attempting to rub out a tiny piece of dirty mark from my pristine iMac whilst trying to think this through, I also think the question: how possible is ontological speech? I mean, ontical speech is speech about beings, and, one might suggest, ontological speech is speech about being (the being of beings, the be-ing of beings, the thinging of things, the appearing of appearances, etc). But, can one speak of being like speaking of beings? Articulate rational speech demands a subject (topic) about which to speak; a being or a category of beings, or even all beings, the totality of beings... etc. But, being is that to which we (insofar as we speak at all, are philosophic speakers) are sub-ject (since we are beings too); thus speaking of being as a topic is inevitable but irrelevant, thus, ontological speech is impossible in the sense of articulate rational speech about some thing (since being is not a thing). Rather being bespeaks us even as we speak of beings (i.e., ontically). So, what in hell is ontological speech? Can we speak of that which we are in the grip of even as we speak of some thing, some being or beings, some thing(s) that we get a grip on?

regards

michaelP
--MS_Mac_OE_3128441260_1670072_MIME_Part-- --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005