From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: SHOW ME THE TEXT - was Essence of Modern Technolgy
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:03:01 +0000


Rene de Bakker wrote:

>Cite that text concerning "ontological" correctness please.
>
>  No i won't: then the same happens as above.

The only reason your citation yesterday of GA 29/30 led to unfortunate 
results for you from the past was that you were spouting condescensions like 
"Forgetting is a real annoyance," and then yourself forgetting that I had 
already addressed your very answer, as I showed from the archives. Since we 
have not discussed a text specifically about "ontological" correctness 
before, you have nothing to fear.

>  You'll focus on what is YOUR
>  aim, and all that text that i took the trouble to find, translate, type 
>etc,  is thrown away in order for you to make your point. But i'm not crazy 
>willie.
>  Either you trust me   - i did it by head, and only controlled afterwards  
>-
>  or you don't or can't. And then we, or i alone, are going to talk about 
>that.

The answer I gave to your GA 29/30 answer was from that very text itself - 
Heidegger explicitly said there that the very reason that the o/o 
distinction is ambiguous is that it is not a distinction between two 
distinct ontic "things," which again reinforces the distinction between the 
ontological and the ontic, albeit without the ontological being a different 
realm. That's why Heidegger says that it is a different without a 
difference. So when you look at his REASON for why the o/o distinction is 
ambiguous, this text cannot be used to blur the distinction except in the 
ONTIC sense of distinction, as a distinction between two entities. That was 
my response, and far from unthinking "throwing away" what you said, it 
addresses the heart of it.

>John Foster wrote:
>
> >If destroying constitutes existential phenomenon, then there must be an
> >afterworld were beings are reconstituted. You are saying that what
> >constitutes existence (being alive) is death, and war is ultimately death 
> >of beings. How is that?
>
>My phrasing was precise - existentials constitute every phenomenon
>
>      This is completely false, and leads to the ridicule, pointed
>      out by John. Existentials only constitute phenomenological
>      phenomena. Not phenomena, as understood 'vulgary' (usually),
>      or Erscheinungen (appearances) in Kant's sense.
>      Constitution of every phenomenon in every sense (Being of beings),
>      is metaphysics - creatio, or constitution in Kant's sense: all
>      that appears must be representable in a conscience, an I.
>
>      All this is treated in the beginning of BT, the all-important -
>      - as earlier said-  par. 7, esp. A: The concept of phenomenon.
>
>      Maybe the belief in the crystal clarity of od has made you blind
>      for this?

Um, look at the second to last paragraph of SuZ section 7A:

"...that which ALREADY shows itself IN THE APPEARANCE as prior to the 
phenomenon AS ORDINARILY UNDERSTOOD AND AS ACCOMPANYING IT IN EVERY CASE, 
can, even though it thus shows itself unthematically, be brought 
thematically to show itself; and what thus shows itself in itself (the 
'forms of the intuition') wilL be the phenomena of phenomenology."

So since in Heidegger's analytic, the existentials are what show themselves 
unthematically "IN EVERY CASE" of everyday phenomena "as ordinarily 
understood," then existentials are constitutive of the phenomena even in the 
EVERYDAY sense, which is all I meant. All you are pointing out is that KANT 
did not think that existentials like being-with constituted the phenomena, 
but John and I were talking about what Heidegger thought, not what Kant 
thought. For Heidegger, an existential "already shows itself" in every case 
of everyday phenomena.

>       for the willing: Later (and clearer) Heidegger says, that 
>ontological
>       difference is the domain of metaphysical thinking. To understand 
>what
>       is involved  - knowledge of the whole of metaphysics in this light -
>       is an enormous labor, but Heidegger has done the most, and i trust 
>him.

Where is the text please.

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive larger attachments with Hotmail Extra Storage.   
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es



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