Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 07:25:51 +0000
Subject: For Trees Or Not For Trees, That Is The Question
From: michaelP <michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk>


on 3/2/04 10:39 pm, GEVANS613-AT-aol.com at GEVANS613-AT-aol.com wrote:

> Are trees just for looking at?

Jud, may I suggest: trees (and all other beings, entities, things, objects,
etc) are neither _for_ looking at nor _for_ not looking at: they (qua trees)
are not _for_ anything (looking-at, not-looking-at, wood resource, subject
of biological enquiry, awe-inspiring spectacle of 'nature', etc); being-for
means they are _nothing but_ objects over-against our subjectivity; in that,
they are not just trees at all; is it at all possible for them to simply
just _be_ (trees) and not _for_ anything (including not being _not-for_
anything)? Can trees ever be 'experienced' (I understand the immediate
ambiguity in employing terms like 'experience', 'encounter', etc) as just
trees, in their just-so-ness, trees-qua-trees, as just being (trees)? What
could this mean vis-a-vis our comportments toward (all) beings (things, etc)
and beings-as-a-whole?

I know this little interlude is a taking out of context your piece on the
'review' of your 'wonderful' site, but it seems to me the only fragment
worth philosophical quoting, engaging food for thought; the rest...?

regards

michaelP 



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