Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 17:20:29 +0100
Subject: Re: the o/o gulf


At 03:41 21-3-03 +0000, Anthony Crifasi wrote:

rene:
>>Heidegger's ontic is not their ontic. For instance Dasein is ontic and
>>ontological.
>>BT, German p. 12: "The ontical distinction of Dasein consists therein,
>>that it IS ontologically." Which does not mean, he continues, that Dasein
>>is building ontologies. Is ontology taken as explicit theoretical 
>>questioning,
>>then 'being ontologically' means 'being pre-ontologically'. And that means
>>not simply 'being-ontically', but 'being in the mode of an understanding of
>>Being."

>It is so imprecise to characterize this simply as "Dasein is ontic and 
>ontological". To say that "The ontical distinction of Dasein consists in 
>that it IS ontologically" is the same thing as saying that ontologically, 
>Dasein is not a distinct ontic entity at all (look at the first sentence of 
>that same paragraph: "Dasein is an entity which does not just occur among 
>other entities.").

Certainly, it's a very peculiar entity, and we are it ourselves. It remains
strange till the very past section of BT and beyond.
#83: "What appears so evident as the difference of the being of the 
existing Dasein over against the being of not-Daseinic beings 
(for instance occurrentness/Vorhandenheit), is still only the UPSHOT
(Ausgang) of the ontological problematic ....." 
We won't ever reach till there, when instead of following the pattern of
threads, we get lost in a priori distictions in the false hope that they can
pin down the phenomenon. 

>>Anyway, ontical and (pre-) ontological are so opaquely interweaved, that
>>their distinction is helpful only as a very provisional device to make out 
>>at a specific point, what the talk is about.
>
>They are NOT "opaquely interweaved" at all! That's like saying that 
>Heidegger is "opaquely interweaving"

No, that's what YOU make of it. According to YOUR idea that a philosopher
-if we still agree that Heidegger is one- can be an interweaver of concepts,
that is: a subject. But interweaving concepts is what YOU are doing.
Not Heidegger. He forges words in order to get a grip on the fact that we
*are* ontological onta, that we are thrown understanding. That is something
IN ITSELF opaque, and the fact that that is not seen, should indeed be most
thoughtprovoking.


rene


essence with existence when he says 
>that Dasein's essence is existence. He's just saying that ontologically, 
>Dasein at its "essence" is no ontical essence at all, but pure potentiality 
>for being. That's not opaque; it is just a play on traditional terminology, 
>based on the traditional way of ontologically analyzing something in terms 
>of its "essence" or "essential features."
>
>Anthony Crifasi
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
>
>     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>

-----------------------------------
drs. Rene de Bakker
Universiteitsbibliotheek Amsterdam
Afdeling Catalogisering 
tel. 020-5252368              


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