From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com>
Subject: Re: the o/o gulf (1)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:20:28 -0800




But isn't this what I'm saying - that the o/o distinction
does not come
"merely through a distinguishing of occurrent differents
(different things),
but ever belongs to the fundamental happening..." The reason
the distinction
is ambiguous is that distinction has so many ontic
connotations - distinct
"things". But what John was doing was to actually reduce the
ontological to
a thing - to feelings, with definite ontic objects.

Anthony Crifasi


I did?

I said that the ontological is different in that the logos
of the 'onto' is 'interpretative', the ontic by themselves
are told, and we can only 'describe their charactersitics' -
much like 'facts' and their 'entities'; feelings are the
'how' as in <befind> which is 'I feel'. At least that is
what I thought or feel. Onto-logical means to discuss beings
(their myriad attributes), not simply to report beings. The
word 'onto' is related to the word 'genesis' or 'beginning'
and the 'birth of being'.

What do you think 'attunement' means then? If not feeling?
<Sich befinden> means 'how one feels'. This question can
only be anwsered sincerely by reporting the facts, if one is
'sincere'?

Reporting on how I feel is not an ontological question. It
is a statement of my immediate reality <reel>. "Being near
to things" becomes a 'fear' if those 'near are' threatened
in my 'presence', especially if these things are 'property'
and 'possessions', which reminds me of the 'dispossessed of
Baghdad.' Once we begin to discuss how things are 'property'
and 'possessions', then we enter into an truthful
relationship about having and possessing (cf. Sartre) and
this is where in a dialogue, a logos, we are presented with
our own. You see this in a legal setting regarding 'family
assets' and the division of 'family assets' and the 'custody
of children'.

You alluded to the 'truth of rightness' and the 'truth of
the open' but you did not discuss their relationship, their
dynamic in terms of an ontological discussion; you only
alluded to their distinctions without any analysis.

You need 'examples' or 'references' to establish in your
readers mind what it is that you need to interpret about
these subjects; there is no 'given' in any analysis even if
you were to 'parrot' the thinker Heidegger; you need to
'appropriate' authentically your ownmost sense of what it is
that Heidegger is trying to say, which is primarily a
'method' of deduction from your own existential experience,
not your political persuasions. There is no 'induction' in
his discussion - well there might be because he is trying to
prove there is an critical difference between the
authenticity of self and not self. If you say there is an
authentic self, then you must also say there is an authentic
world, and both cannot occur or occasion simultaneously; but
no one can prove or disprove simultaneity either way.

Like I said anxeity is a sate of mind; mind is a feeling,
and it cannot be simply anything else. There is nothing
factical about that but rather it is a 'generalization' and
it is somewhat 'irrational'. If I said that I was able to
feel 'dread' about a certain entity then I would say that
this is 'exact' and 'rational', leaving little room for
doubt. However as an interpretation only, there is nothing I
can say about my feeling; these simply occur spontaneously
and 99% of them are 'against interpretation'. I can either
'infer' what might be the proximate cause of this, or let
them be, and wait out their wasting away, but this inference
has really nothing exactly to do with the causal sources;
hence by stating this I have disclosed the ontological,
which is purely stated as the 'dread'. Even if I believed it
had a 'cause' it still exists much similar to other
instances of 'dread' which have other causes. This dread
'authenticates' in that it is a feeling of 'foreboding' risk
for my property and possessions (even if these are not
material since it could be a love or my health). These could
be mental possessions....

the last which I would float
and trade

chao

john



____________________________________________________________
_____
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months
FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



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




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