From: "Tudor Georgescu" <tgeorgescu-AT-home.nl>
Subject: RE: The Fluttering Moth of Marburg
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 15:06:23 +0100


> (1) Heidegger - "Being is always the Being of a being."
> (1a) Use of "is" in relation to "Being." How can "Being" possible "be"
>if it's not a thing and doesn't exist?

Yes, because the to be (a.k.a. Being) is the fact something is (rather than
no thing is). The to be is thus the condition of all things' existence. To
say the to be is not, this is nihilism, because it grounds things on
somebeing that does not exist.

> (2) Heidegger - "to define anew the kind of Being."
> (2a) Being (which doesn't exist) can be categorized. 
> How does one categorise nothing?

Definition: the to be is total, fundamental and absolute. It is the Whole. I
proved above that nihilism is nonsensical, for something is. The Nothing is
an existence (a being), yet the most empty one. But, it seems it is pretty
malleable, since it fills all the "empty" places inside substances.

> (3) Heidegger - "the Being of this being"
>(3a) "Being" can "belong" to someone?
> How can something, which is not a thing - and therefore is a nothing,
> [although it is impossible either to be a nothing or not to be a nothing]
> belong to someone?

"Being of this being" is the fact that being is. Following this line of
thought, we can say, more exactly, that the to be is not, but it is
to-be-ing. Only its creation, the "is" is. Herein pops up the distinction
between the potential and dynamics. The potential exists potentially (it is
to-be-ing), and only its instantiations exist dynamically (they are). We see
that here we reconciled realism with mentalism: world is both real
(objectual) and mental (virtual). How can we conceive such a world? See
http://members.home.nl/tgeorgescu/2questions.html for its knowability. Thus,
the to be is not a thing, but it generates all things. It is the virtual
coexistence of all virtualities, and it enforces its domination upon beings
(existences) by generating the dynamics (also known as objectual reality in
previous mindframes).

> (4) Heidegger - "the basic constitution of their Being."
> (4a) "Being" has a "constitution?"
> How can something, which does not exist "have" a "constitution?"
> Reminder: "Constitution" is the way in which someone or something is
composed.

Besides begging the question, you confuse the general the to be with the way
of being of particular beings. We can imagine the to be only as being
equally present in all places, undivided and without any distinction in its
spatial/substantial configuration. Therefore, its constitution is the
Oneness, defined above as total, fundamental and absolute.

> (5) Heidegger - "the realm of Being called nature"
> (5a) "Being" is to be in a "realm."
> How can "Being" have any "realm" if it doesn't exist?

It definitely does not present itself as a whole in any instance (thus we
deny the holistic thought). But, it presents itself by creating for us a
framework (the nature) within which we have to cope or face the
psychiatrists. Therefore, nature is defined by the unalienable willingness
to be, and it is thus the to be's realm.

> (6) Heidegger - "this being's (man's) kind of Being."
> (6a) Though non-existent it comes in various "kinds."
> How can "Being" {which doesn't exist} be sorted out into different "kinds"
> How is this sorting carried out and who is it that does the sorting?

Heidegger circumscribed man's way of being by its capacities: he is having a
body, he is in the world, he is emotional, he is understanding-able, he is
with the others, etc. These are a priori knowledge about the being of every
possible man, even when some of the above capacities seem to be lacking. Of
course, here the Christian believes the to be is a big Dasein, yet
Heidegger's philosophy avoided such theological standpoints, possibly from
fear of being misunderstood as a fideist.

> (7) Heidegger - "the term Dasein, as a pure expression of Being,"
> (7a) So "Being" is not a "Being" - it's a being Being-There?"

This expresses that the human is a way of being, which (potentially and/or
dynamically) understands the to be in its motivations and aims. It can
understand itself as an existence, which is a pure expression of the
Existence, as a drop is an analysis (abstract) of the ocean.

> (8) Heidegger - "The "soul" which constitutes the Being of man"
> (8a) Oops! Now it's not a "Being" anymore - it a "soul." Well God luv a
duck!

Mark 8:37 and Luke 12:20 seem to suggest that "soul" means the personal
existence, the ability of being situated in a world. See the 2questions for
an analysis.

> (9) Heidegger - "a being which in conformity with its kind of Being" 
> (9a) So a being can conform with or to something that doesn't exist?

He was trying to render that one cannot jump over his own shadow, i.e.
become something else than he is meant to become, in the limitations due to
human's constitution and its thrownness.

> (10) Heidegger - "its most proper Being."
> (10a) So "Being" [though it is non-existent] can be described
> adjectivally as having all the qualities typical of the thing specified?

Proper means one's own. It probably means the essence of each person, which
is a being which actualizes in his/her person.

> (11) Heidegger - " the specific constitution of the Being of Dasein"
> (11a) Things get even more curious - now the "constitution" of
> "Being" can be described "specifically."

He means that we are different from each other.

> (12) Heidegger - " It only brings out the Being of this being"
> (12a) So the invisible, non-existent "Being" can be "brought out"
> now - OK the floor is yours - let's see it please?

One can express himself/herself or fail at this.

> (13) Heidegger - " separating the regions of Being". 
> (13a) Ah!  Now we get down to the nitty-gritty - although "Being"
> doesn't exist it can be separated into "regions".  How is this
> separation accomplished?  This is REALLY exciting.  Please rush me
> the details.

We know that existence, as any other substance, can be divided in pieces or
domains.

> (14) Heidegger - " the structures and concepts of Being"
> (14a) So "Being" has "structure" Pray tell us how this "structure"
> is built using non-existent materials? If it has structure" how is
> it "destructured or restructured or restructured?"

Some of the structure we see, for example, in a computer, which is an
existence (but not a Dasein). Another structures are our psychological and
spiritual structures, which cannot be seen, but they exist, though.

> (15) Heidegger - " the Temporality of Being." 
> (15a)  So this non-existent structure exists in time does it?"

It manifests itself by creating the time, as its (actual and possible)
horizon of revelation.

> (16) Heidegger - " the constitution of Being of the "occurrence" of
Dasein"
> (16a) So "Being-There" has an "occurrence" does it - most people thing
> that it is the entity that occurs rather than the being of the being-there
> of that entity? Perhaps you mean that the Being of a being, and the Being
of
> its Being-There  happen at the same time? But it can't can it - for
Heidegger
> has already said that: "Being" is "soul?"

Well, for us, the to be is certainly an occurrence. We first meet it as
"outside" in order to recognize it later everywhere. Therefore, what we
first have is our soul (without knowing that it is our soul) and later can
we speak about other souls and the existence in general.

> that being is called "Being-There"  

For me, it is always called being-here (if I speak of myself).

Gigantomachia peri tes ousias!

Tudor Georgescu

http://intellect-club.nl.eu.org





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