Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:23:50 -0700
From: Kenneth Johnson <beeso-AT-pop.charter.net>
Subject: Re: A Taster



Michael Eldred wrote:

>his [heideggers] blind spots have to be brought into the open,

>whilst not forgetting "that now beings _are_ no longer, but that _beyng_
>springs to
>‘beings’." (GA65:248 Section 130) That is a task _for us_ -- to unfold
>what this
>could mean.


"that now beings _are_ no longer, but that _beyng_ springs to beings’."


wow, michael, well please put us at least as far down the way of that task
as you've been able to unfold its meaning to so far, as this strikes my ear
ultrafascinatingly, equal at least in depth to your once mentioning that
most folk are oblivious to their own oblivion


>I have yet to see a skerrick of putting Heidegger's thinking into question in
>anything you say.
>I have yet to see a skerrick of a question at all in what you have to say.


uh, what's a skerrick??


>
>Heidegger, at least, was always dissatisfied, was always questioning
>himself. That
>did not prevent him, however, from being blind to certain phenomena.







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