Subject: RE: o/o
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:08:53 +0200
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl>




-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Anthony Crifasi [mailto:crifasi-AT-hotmail.com]
Verzonden: woensdag 16 april 2003 21:22
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Onderwerp: RE: o/o


Rene de Bakker wrote:
nt't hold much of morals on the basis of (rational) coercion, 
>but
>          that's how the Kantian relation is.

Where exactly is this passage? I want to study it in context.

         First some thinking. Maybe then some more cookies.

Look, which of the following do you dispute:
1. Kant denied that we encounter entities as they are.
2. Heidegger does not deny that we encounter entities as they are.

        More ordering? Why should the 'being' of things be so univocal, as
        you're demanding here?


Are you referring to the catenation of lies that he played before the UN on 
audio tapes? I didn't know that you were going that far into conspiracy 
theories.

         The experts are speaking out now. don't know what you get. A Norwegian
         inspector claims that his whole story was made up. All they've found
         so far is a retired terrorist, and nothing more. Ah the shit must be
         moved to Syria, and then ... etc. Meanwhile hundreds of Bins might
         have stood up. Self fulfilling prophecy.
         Conspiration? Do you know in what camp you are really now?   

>Heidegger himself says many times that Being is not a being. That is all I 
>mean.
>
>      Well, everybody agrees on that, Anthony, even Jud. So stating 
>ontological
>      difference, is not enough to make a difference.
>      When H says, that Being is not a being, he means that we *don't* 
>understand
>      it, because we are familiar at first with beings, and not with the 
>*meaning*
>      of Being, which still has to be SHOWN, namely as what is asked for.
>      You, however, or anyone repeating Heidegger's dictum, that Being is 
>not a being,
>      accuse others, that they don't know what they're talking about, when 
>they're
>      talking of Being. Then you come with your o/o distinction, implying 
>that *you*
>      know by that the difference of Being and beings. But you don't know. 
>Not because
>      you're dumb, but because it cannot be KNOWN.

Oh what sophistry Rene! Of course it cannot be KNOWN per se, but that is 
precisely because KNOWLEDGE is limited to the ontical in the first place! 
Heidegger himself clearly and repeatedly criticizes the conflation the 
ontological with any ontic facticity. As for the distinction itself, what he 
specifically criticized in the text you posted a while back is the 
conflation of the o/o distinction with an ONTIC distinction. He said that 
the o/o distinction is mysterious because there aren't two ontic entities 
involved, which is the everyday meaning of "distinction". THAT is the 
ambiguity in the o/o distinction. It is ambiguous in exactly the same way 
that the "essence" of Dasein is ambiguous (i.e., not an ontic entity). So if 
I criticize John or you for conflating the ontological with an ontic 
facticity, you cannot respond by appealing to the ambiguity of the o/o 
distinction, because that ambiguity consists precisely in the non-onticity 
of that distinction in the first place!


It's unbelievable what stupid intelligence is ready to ignore, i'm no longer
gonna feed your war machine.

thanks for the conversation, Anthony


Rene 















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