Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:43:15 +0100
From: Rene de Bakker <rene.de.bakker-AT-uba.uva.nl>
Subject: Re: neither/nor (was: Righteous War? Or bluff?)


At 12:21 20-2-03 +0000, you wrote:
>   on 20/2/03 10:43 am, Paul Murphy at Villanova-AT-btopenworld.com wrote:
> 
> 
>>   Get a ticket to Athens if you don't believe me....PM
>> 
>> 
>Sorry, Paul, I thought techne was being referred to in an ancient Greek
>philosophical context and not (so much) a modern colloquial context.
>Certainly techne means 'art' in both contexts but art is meant differently
>in each case too. I do have some Heidegger quotes and references vis-a-vis
>philosophic reflections on techne if you want...
> 
> regards
> 
> 
>>michaelP


But what nowadays is art else than Erlebnis-technology, presented at
expositions?
The way art 'shows itself' is by way of ex-position (every attendant follows
the direction "Exposition -->", without noticing it). Everybody sees the works
of art (the ontical), alsmost nobody its ontological 'being" as (ex)position.
Now what character would have to have this thinking or seeing that 'fathoms'
the technical being of these works of art?

In order to go after that, it is first necessary to know what ontological
difference is
as it is understood in metaphysics, esp. where the realm of the distinction
opens up
for the first time: in Plato. And very very significantly, at the point
where, after Being
(to on, ousia) is explained as idea, as visibility of the idea in and of
things that as such
cannot BE (stay), the Platonian asking is for what it is in the idea that
is the
CONDITION of presence and steadiness: the idea of the good hat is present
in all
ideas. "Good" meaning: making fit, suitable. Of this 'idea of the good'
Plato then says
that ITSELF, the good, is epekeina tes ousias, beyond (the realm of) presence.
(where only the present is present). The good, as the (ontological) aition,
the condition
of all that is, is itself outside of the realm of the present (ontical)

According to Heidegger here BEGINS the ontological difference, which would
mean the
same as: here begins metaphysics. Metaphysical thinking from now on has its
ellbowroom
between Being, that conditions, and beings that are conditioned. (Kant's
question for the
conditions of the possibility of human knowledge moves therefore WITHIN
this realm, is a
subjective variant of it, that can only deploy at the cost of not being
aware of it - it is 
arranged in advance, that being is mere position: Sein ist OFFENBAR die
Position.
If Heidegger would not have payed attention to it, no-one would ever have
seen this
inconspicious 'offenbar', clearly)

In our world, the ontical and the ontological are AGAINST each other, this
means the
impossibility of metaphysics, of a transcending to its being of and in a
technology-driven
world. That they remain at last in a hidden opposition, has to do with the
NIHILIST
(dissolving) character of metaphysics itself: the impossibility of
ontological difference
is the 'result'  of the beginning of the ontological difference itself. But
all these things can
better be forgotten, and everything said of or about it just laughable, as
long as an
elementary bit of Plato, Kant, Nietsche has not been deciphered.
Metaphysics is
ontology, the logos of beings qua beings, that is of Being, which is the
asked for.
It is in METAPHYSICS, that Being hides. So blocking that road with silly
aversions
means setting the seal on your own superfluousness.

Rene










-----------------------------------
drs. Rene de Bakker
Universiteitsbibliotheek Amsterdam
Afdeling Catalogisering 
tel. 020-5252368              


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