File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0306, message 25


Subject: RE: accents
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:01:42 +0200
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl>


 

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: michaelP [mailto:michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk]
Verzonden: vrijdag 6 juni 2003 16:12
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Onderwerp: accents


rene:


The wall "is" anyhow. 



Jud:


No - the wall is a wall anyhow. 



mP:


Yes: the difference is where one puts the accent on the sentence "the wall is a wall anyhow"; if on the second "wall" we get Jud's assertion; if on the "is" we get rene's; the other difference is on rene's scarequotes 
 
       That is: Heidegger's
 
around the "is", thus putting the "is" into question, whereas Jud typically employs/partakes-of the "is" (like every one else inevitably: "is" being the most-used word in the language)

        It is a constantly used word, which hides in everydayness. Is that not still a sort of 'there'?  Everydayness "is" there; 'there' namely 'whereto' the word everydayness indicates. And we are in there.  As everyday Dasein. But everything tells us, that this is nothing special.
And Jud is the streetwise champion of everyday, everything and everyman. He also has a lot of 'm.
 
  without putting the "is" into question, merely simply repeatedly denying its existence or reality; i.e., rene's comportment towards beings and being is philosophical whereas Jud's comportment is just opinionated (perhaps malignantly so), without the slightest reasoning of such opinionation that could bring the "is" to life or to its grave (in its signifying of something outside its wordly home). Which is also why rene's raps are far more dangerous and exciting (like comparing MnM [rene] to Shaggy [Jud] in the rap field) and responsive/alive.


But I don't object to his logical (or illogical) point of view. On the contrary, a reflection of the way in which basic philosophical words refer, is absolutely necessary, again and again, because language (as "the house of being") determines what we see and keep for real. So that new
words don't guarantee new thoughts, but only the illusion of it. (also a Trojan 'gift' of language).
Now, as in the case of that meta-professor, total everydayness, total comprehension, is in itself impossible. A perfect analytic or positivist 
must feel that somehow (the riddle "is"), but he cannot allow himself to admit it ever. When he is intelligent, he must either get mad, senile, even suicidal or, like Jud, chronically malignent. All in all a nice partner. And there's probably a shaggy too in all of us, don't you think?
 
A good weekend to the whole of England. 
 
 rene





--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005