From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com>
Subject: Anxiety is about nothing...whatsoever, was distortions 
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 07:49:53 -0700



----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 6:21 AM
Subject: distortions of the ontic/ontological


> John Foster wrote:
>
> > > Ontological
> > > existentials like mitsein and anxiety were being twisted into ontic
> > > facticities like a UN consensus and worries over ontic existents,
> > > like an ecosystem, in an attempt to give these ontic positions
> > > ontological priority over the other side.
> >
> >Might want to rephrase that. You should be focusing on the 'parallels'
> >not the 'distinctions'; the ontological must have it's 'parallels' in
> >the factical.
>
> Heidegger does not say, Being parallels a being. He says Being is NOT a
> being. Heidegger does not say, Anxiety parallels an entity in the world.
He
> says that anxiety is about nothing in the world whatsoever.

Hmmm. If so, then what? Are you sure anxiety is about 'nothing'? I thought
anxiety has a relation to the possible? I don't recall any reference in
Heidegger or his interpretors claiming

"that anxiety is about nothing"

Are you saying that anxiety is about something not "in the world
whatsoever"?

Because that is the implication of your logic?

chao

John






 Heidegger does
> not say that Dasein's essence parallels an entity in the world. He says
that
> Dasein's essence is not an entity in the world at all. Your rephrasing
above
> is a classic example of a blatant distortion of what Heidegger himself
says
> concerning the ontic/ontological distinction, because characterizing the
o/o
> distinction as a "parallel" leaves open the possibility that Being is a
> being, which Heidegger flatly denies. So your rephrasing is precisely an
> example of what I am talking about concerning these common
> misinterpretations.
>
> >That is why the UN is a 'parallel' of the
> >ontological-existential of 'being-along-side-others'. If there were no
> >factical 'parallels' to the ontological-existential, then there would
> >be no ontological at all. It has to have  'ground' for it to exist, at
> >least as a concept.
>
> The UN "parallels" being-alongside-others in precisely the same way that
the
> ANTI-UN side "parallels" being-alongside-others, because once again (for
the
> 1500th time) Heidegger explicitly says that being-alongside is
constitutive
> of ALL being-in-the-world, not just some ways and not others. Being-with
is
> constitutive of everything from our most universal agreements to our most
> private, defiant thoughts. So your appeal to being-alongside in specific
> support of the UN is just a blatant distortion of Heidegger.
>
> >Warmongering is inauthentic, because it is a form of self-forgetting,
> >and forgetting the self is not authentic. Only people who are capable
> >of forgetting themselves can kill babies from the air.
>
> And how, pray tell, is warmongering but not peace-mongering a form of
> self-forgetting? Remember, we are talking about existentials, which
> therefore are constitutive of ALL being-in-the-world, not just some but
not
> others.
>
> >Guess that I am partly quilty then. What I cannot understand is your
> >'rigid' interpretation.
>
> Did I say that Being is not a being? No, it was Heidegger not me. Did I
say
> that Dasein's essence is not an entity in the world? No, it was Heidegger.
> Did I say that anxiety is about nothing in the world? No, it was
Heidegger.
> So neither Heidegger nor I understand your "loose" interpretation.
>
> >Malcolm is right. They are all connected, that is the funny thing
> >about 'feeling's'....remember that feelings are not purely emotions.
> >Emotions in a 2 year-old are sometimes in charge, but in an adult at
> >middle age, the is a much more modulated being-there <Da-sein>
>
> Good lord John! Existentials are not merely "much more modulated"!
> Existentials are constitutive of ALL being-in-the-world! That is the
> fundamental point that you are missing over and over and over again -
> existentials do not come and go, nor are they a "constant" ontic
facticity.
> That is why Heidegger says, Being is not a being!
>
> Anthony Crifasi
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 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 ---