Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 11:33:29 +0200
Subject: Re: truth


Michael,

You wrote:
>_...ou monon daelousin hoti esti ti ho topos, 
>all' hoti kai echei tina dynamin_  (208b10)

>"[the courses (phorai) of the simple physical 
>bodies] not only make it clear that place is 
>something but also that it has a power"

>There is no mention of "places differing from 
>one another" but of place _being_ something, 
>i.e. _ousia_. The movements of the elements 
>show that place as _ousia_ has its being as a 
>power, a _dynamis_, which means nothing other 
>than _topos_ is a "principle for the change in 
>something else" (Met. Theta 1 1046a10), namely 
>for the movements of the simple elements. 

A slightly different intepretation:

Not: "it has a power" - but: "it 
has a hold on dynamis". 

Cf. GA15:94  the Archilochos-fragment 67A: 
"gignooske d' hoios rusmos anthroopous echei, 
erkenne, welcher Rhythmus die Menschen hält" 
(roughly: see which rhythm has a hold on man).    

Echoo, from Sanskrit sahate, having power 
(German: Sieg - English: victory). 
In Sanskrit one siegt if one is able to hold
the enemy (up, back or in place) - not if one
destroys him.
(Cf. for an interesting example of echein 
tina: Homer d419.)
A more specific form of echein tina is logon 
echon (lit. having a hold on logos)  

Seen in this light, topos has not its being
as power, but is a being that has a hold on 
dynamis, i.e. it is a topos, not because it 
is something or other, but because it does 
something (holds change (?) up, back or in
place).

As Heidegger points out (cf. GA55:369), 
change is never indefinite. In being 
(Seiendes) Being (Sein) is bound 
(eingegrenzt in seinem Umriß, peras,telos).
This bringing into being is a poiein kata 
phusin - which is also a legein. 
 
You wrote:
>If this understanding of _topos_ and its power 
>is rejected, this goes along with a rejection 
>of the metaphysics of _ousia_ and is only 
>possible on the basis of an alternative 
>metaphysical casting of the whole of being 
>as outlined in Descartes' _Meditatione_. A new 
>cast of the dice as a whole, not piecemeal 
>modification. 

If a poiein kata phusin is also a legein, 
the question might be asked if Descartes's 
pronuntiatum - Ego sum, ego existo 
(cf. AT VII 25) - is a topos in the 
Aristotelian sense. Is it a legein kata 
phusin? 

If the Cartesian pronuntiatum is a legein
kata phusin, the difference between the 
Aristotelian topos and the pronuntiatum 
is the next question in the Meditationes:

"Nondum verò satis intelligo, quisnam sim 
ego ille, qui jam necessario sum [...]." 
(AT VII 25)

Roughly: I do not yet fully understand who
that ego is, which I necessarily am.

Kindest regards,
Henk



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