From: "Jim Barcelona" <barce-AT-slip.net>
Subject: Re: god and gramm
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 12:15:56 -0700


>
>There are grammars and there is grammar. I agree that we need not be stuck
>with any particular grammar (in the sense that there may be alternative
>grammars available). Nietzsche's point about belief in grammar has to do
>with grammar as grammar (the implication of being as the grammatical glue
>of discourse). I concede that my characterization of the
>post-structuralists/Heideggerians is perhaps a bit unfair. Heidegger might
>be seen, however, as setting up a whole new set of opposites
>(ontic/ontological) which themselves trade upon the being-implication
>resident in grammar as grammar. The question is how are we to regard this
>move. Is it simply a withdrawal back into the self-introspectivity of
>thinking upon thinking (the ontological) while denying and negating the
>world (the ontic)? In that sense, Heidegger's thinking would be a
>world-denying nihilism, in the Nietzschean sense, a new Buddhism. (I'll
>grant that other views here are entirely possible.)
>

Would you care to refer to sections in Heidegger that trade upon the
being-implication resident in grammar as grammar? I'm not sure that it's
been sufficiently brought out that the distinction between ontic and
ontological trades upon such grammatical deception.

Moreover, in what sense is the ontological related to self-introspectivity?
Why is the world ontic for Heidegger?




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