Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:55:56 +0000
Subject: naive gulfs
From: michaelP <michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk>


some naive questions concerning different linguistic comportments:

in the following X and Y should be considered beings...

1) In rational speech we can make statements like this:

"X because Y"

as the giving of reasons, the giving of a particular kind of relation
(causative, rule, etc) between beings and classes of beings. Whereas a
certain other kind of speech is concerned rather with the "because" as such
without concern for the X and Y. Thinking "because" without X and Y means
that "because" cannot be another being, say, Z, otherwise we could utter
statements like ""because" 'because' "because"". We consider just the power
of "because" qua "because".

2) We can also write things like:

"X is (not) Y"

as the expression of an identity or difference/otherness of/between beings
or classes of beings. Again what kind of speech just considers the "is" or
"is not" without consideration of the X and Y?

3) We can say:

"X belongs to Y"

as a statement of membership or inclusion of one being in another. What can
we mean if we just consider "belongs to/with"?

4) We often say that:

"X as opposed to Y"

and suggest a facing of one thing up against another, siding. What gives if
we just think "opposition" itself without the two sides that face each other
in tension?

Are these examples displaying another kind of speech? Are we here attempting
in such a speech to scrutinise the very revelatory power of language itself?
Is language thereby becoming just another being to be investigated like any
other? Can any such scrutiny display anything at all without the Xs and Ys?
I.e., is such speech analytically possible at all?

michael-engulfed 


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