Subject: RE: o/o Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:06:49 +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: donderdag 8 mei 2003 17:12 Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Onderwerp: o/o Rene de Bakker wrote: >I found a smashing treatment of o/o in Gelassenheit, that is >in the conversation. Still interested in o/o itself, and >not merely in its use as a weapon in ontic issues? First, yes post it. My text of the conversation is paginated 31 to 73. On p. 55, o/o is introduced by the investigator/Forscher, saying that the relation between Gegnet and thing is neither a causal one, nor transcendental-horizontal, therefore neither ontic nor ontological. One page more upwards, where the teacher/Lehrer speaks of objects and "things-in-themselves", is the beginning of the text I mean. We would at the same time have an indirect, but essential word on Kant and Geschichte. The english translation is not available here. Could you procure/besorgen it? (thanks for "Who is N's Zarath.) (Gegnet can be read here shortly as: truth (openness), as is said somewhere else in the conversation.) Secondly, I was not using it as a weapon in ontic issues. I was responding to what I saw as John Foster's conflation of the ontic with the ontological in his anti-war argument. My main issue on this list has always primarily been about the interpretation and mis-interpretation of Heidegger. The fact that Heidegger was being misinterpretated for the sake of an ontically wrong side only added to my motivation. All right! That's also why I brought in 'natural nature'. regards rene --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005