Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 16:04:48 -0600
Subject: Re: Time is temporal!



--Boundary_(ID_eNFq0RFZKUD6IHc5XPIrDg)

>Allen in recent times said:
>
>  > Die Zeit ist Zeitlich!   Heidegger claims on p.21 of "The Concept of
>>  Time" ( lecture to the Marburg Theologians in 1924) that this is not
>>  a tautology, but rather" the most authentic determination. . .because
>>  the Being of temporality signifies non-identical actuality" (wiel das
>>  Sein der Zeitlichkeit ungleiche Wirklichkeit bedeutet).
>
>
>[snip]
>
>>  I need some help in parsing the movement of the language here.
>>
>>  Allen (needful of, and perhaps even desiring  correction)
>
>Allen, no correction needed, methinks... this seems to be somethink 
>[sic] Hegelian... time (temporality) is precisely and utterly 
>punctually, the non-identical, is never what it is. Heidegger in 
>saying that time is temporal and that is not a tautology, is saying 
>that time times and is neverever self-identical (and that is the 
>being of time and the time of being), time is timing (and moving on 
>as the stones who gather no moss say). If we can say that time is 
>change(ing) then, then now and the to-come are gathered in 
>non-identity: the very ontological difference... the -ing in be-ing, 
>time in its timing. What do you think?
>
>regards
>
>michaelP

Michael,

Nicely wrought.  One of the reasons (though definitely not THE 
reason) things are the way they are is in order that we may put such 
words to them.

I like "gathered into non-identity."  It presages the project of 
phenomenology since Heraclitus-- to think the logos in and through 
the flux.  It also says quite clearly that those English--the 
analytical philosophers--  miss catching a ride with the stone as it 
rolls, and gathers no moss, which as you say, leaves the stone with 
even less to say than we have.

But Heidegger doesn't say that Time times, rather that Time is 
temporal, event-uating in a non-identical actuality.  Which leaves me 
to wonder, how can one identify (or even non-identify) the Wirklich 
in the Wirklichkeit ( the actual of the actuality)?

The German might be instructive here ( probably because I don't know 
it very well).  But does the verb "virken" ( to have an effect) bear 
at all on the meaning of Wirklichkeit?  It does make Nietzschean if 
not German sense:  "A thing is the sum of its effects."  The forward 
moving, retroflective, having an effect back on itself, of becoming 
makes a thing what it "actually" (wirklich) is.

Allen (sometimes wishing  German, rather than English were my first 
( and only) tongue.
-- 
  Allen Scult					Dept. of Philosophy
HOMEPAGE: " Heidegger on Rhetoric and Hermeneutics":	Drake University
http://www.multimedia2.drake.edu/s/scult/scult.html	Des Moines, Iowa 50311
PHONE: 515 271 2869
FAX: 515 271 3826

--Boundary_(ID_eNFq0RFZKUD6IHc5XPIrDg)

HTML VERSION:

Allen in recent times said:

> Die Zeit ist Zeitlich!   Heidegger claims on p.21 of "The Concept of
> Time" ( lecture to the Marburg Theologians in 1924) that this is not
> a tautology, but rather" the most authentic determination. . .because
> the Being of temporality signifies non-identical actuality" (wiel das
> Sein der Zeitlichkeit ungleiche Wirklichkeit bedeutet).

[snip]

> I need some help in parsing the movement of the language here.
>
> Allen (needful of, and perhaps even desiring  correction)

Allen, no correction needed, methinks... this seems to be somethink [sic] Hegelian... time (temporality) is precisely and utterly punctually, the non-identical, is never what it is. Heidegger in saying that time is temporal and that is not a tautology, is saying that time times and is neverever self-identical (and that is the being of time and the time of being), time is timing (and moving on as the stones who gather no moss say). If we can say that time is change(ing) then, then now and the to-come are gathered in non-identity: the very ontological difference... the -ing in be-ing, time in its timing. What do you think?

regards

michaelP

--