File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0305, message 126


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005