Subject: Re: the o/o gulf
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:34:57 +0000


John Foster wrote:

> >The distinction re ontical and ontological
> >is largely 'interpretative' (hermuetic). The interrogation
> >of being (questioning) is the beginning of an ontological
> >understanding. Versus an 'acceptance' of what is
> >'there'....which is not a questioning. Hence the importance
> >of the indivisibility of the ontical and the 'pre-ontological'.
>
>Anthony wrote:
>How in the world do your two middle sentences serve in any
>way to support
>your first and last sentences? Questioning is the beginning
>of ontological
>understanding, versus and acceptance of what is
>there...therefore the ontic
>and ontological are indivisible???? This is almost as
>mysterious as your
>argument that the 9/11 hijackers were not Saudis or
>fundamentalist Muslims
>because they became US citizens and enrolled in Christian
>universities in the  US.
>
>John here,
>
>You missed the point. The pre-ontological is fused with the
>ontical. If you re-read your Being and Time, and also The
>History of the Concept of Time, then you will understand
>what is meant.

John you can't pretend to know what Heidegger means at SuZ 12 with a 
characterization as vague and general as "The pre-ontological is fused with 
the ontical!" This was the sentence in SuZ 12: "Dasein is ontically 
distinctive in that it IS ontological (or ontologically)." What he PRECISELY 
means by this is that ontologically Dasein is not an ontic entity at all. 
Look at the first sentence of that paragraph: "Dasein is an entity which 
does not just occur among other entities." Since only ontic entities occur 
among other entities, then what this PRECISELY means is that Dasein is NOT 
an occurring entity at all, just like "Dasein's essence is existence." 
ONTICALLY, Dasein can be an ontic entity, but not ONTOLOGICALLY. Just like 
ONTICALLY, Dasein can be an essence, but ONTOLOGICALLY Dasein is existence 
or pure potentiality for being. If Dasein is encountered ontically (for 
example, in a scientific analysis), Dasein then is a specific thing, a body 
(in physics or biology), perhaps a soul or a psyche (in psychology), or a 
cultural or socio-political event (in sociology or politics). But 
ontologically, Dasein is none of these, but the very possibility for any of 
these ways of being.

>The ontological is a form of interrogation
>about what is presented in phenomenon. It would really help
>if you could actually provide a definition of what you mean
>by ontic and clarify how you are applying this concept in
>your analysis. Hiedegger has provided several examples of
>what is ontical. For instance spirituality of the subject is
>an example of the ontical since this phenomenon is a
>relation, ie., the subject is thus 'different' due to
>culture, society, geography, family, in essence
>'circumstance' and 'attitude'. Hiedegger also attempts to
>clarify the existence of a modern 'dasein' and primitive
>'dasein' as a matter of ontological importance. The
>activities which are described as 'ontological' or
>'modifications of being' are such activities
>(being-in-the-world) as 'discussing' et cetera. Discussing
>is not an ontical form of 'relating' but rather an
>ontological modification. It is universal for the human
>species to discuss.
>
>Now the ontical is not something which is 'counterfeit' nor
>'inauthentic' (except in a relational sense) as such but
>rather similar to the 'garment' of culture, sexuality, and
>so on. The ontical may be expressed in  'demeanour' and by
>'attitudes'. For instance your attitude about 'right' and
>'wrong' vis a vis the Iraq and so on, reflects your
>spiritual, mental and intellectual 'subjective' beliefs.
>Attitude is essentially a form of 'propositional thought'
>and furthermore all 'inferential wisdom' therefore is
>'ontical'. The specific contents of critical thinking are
>ontical; however the ontological or metaphysical definition
>of ethical actions require both the emotive and the
>critical. For example the specific 'virus' which is the
>target of an ethical act, say polio in the world is the
>'ontical' content, the subject, of an ethical action to
>remove a pathogen from the human population. The ontological
>content of the ethical therefore is to 'remove suffering'
>and 'disease', to eliminate anxiety.

John this is what I mean when I say that you are continually conflating the 
ontic with the ontological. The ethical is OPPOSED TO the un-ethical, but 
BOTH are ways of being-in-the-world John! BOTH ARE WAYS OF 
BEING-IN-THE-WORLD JOHN! Someone or something can BE ethical, and someone or 
something can BE unethical. BOTH ARE WAYS OF BEING-IN-THE-WORLD JOHN! So an 
ontology of being-in-the-world MUST be ethically neutral because the 
un-ethical is ALSO A WAY OF BEING-IN-THE-WORLD JOHN! I have pointed out this 
glaring problem over and over, and you have yet to address it, while 
pretending to know what the ontic/ontological distinction means!

>(Anxiety unlike you
>have stated always takes on the form of
>'being-in-the-world',

John stop and read for a second instead of just assuming your 
interpretation:
"That is the face of which one has anxiety is not an entity 
within-the-world. Thus it is essentially INCAPABLE OF HAVING AN INVOLVEMENT. 
This threatening does NOT HAVE THE CHARACTER OF A DEFINITE DETRIMENTALITY 
which reaches what is threatened, and which reaches it with definite regard 
to a special factical potentiality-for-Being. THAT IN THE FACE OF WHICH ONE 
IS ANXIOUS IS COMPLETELY INDEFINITE. Not only does this indefiniteness leave 
factically undecided which entity within-the-world is threatening us, but it 
also tells us that entities within-the-world are not relevant at all. 
NOTHING WHICH IS READY-TO-HAND OR PRESENT-AT-HAND WITHIN THE WORLD FUNCTIONS 
AS THAT IN THE FACE OF WHICH ANXIETY IS ANXIOUS." (SuZ 186)

>or ontically, this polio virus in the
>world. This does not mean that the ontical is superfluous
>nor inessential but rather that these contents are
>reflective of 'being-in-the-world' or 'situation' which is
>highly dependent on the subject using convention, custom,
>and ritual. The ontical presentation of  sexuality is
>dependent on culture, and the individual. For example men in
>some cultures are responsible for taking care of young
>children, knitting clothes, et cetera. The ontical
>presentation of 'self' in everyday life is a 'dependent'
>variable and is of no real value in the phenomenological
>ontology of human existence, the existential. The 'sexual
>garment' we all wear begins early, at the time of conception
>(boys have XY and girls have XX chromosomes - and there are
>variants of these to) due to genetics, and later due to
>culture, society, individual preference.
>
>Heidegger clarifies too what is meant by the
>'being-in-the-world' as an indivisible complex. Rather than
>'being-in' in the sense of a realm of concentric and larger
>domains of worlds or spheres, he states that 'being-in'
>means 'being-along-side' entities. Entiities are both
>material things as well as conceptual forms
>(idea-image-concepts).

Again you are conflcting the ontic with the ontological! Being-alongside has 
NOTHING to do with "conceptual forms" such as ideas, images, and concepts. 
That is such a blaring misinterpretation of being-alongside! 
Conceptualization is precisely what results in encountering things in the 
OTHER sense of being-in (in the sense of a realm of concentric and larger 
domains of worlds or spheres). By interpreting being-alongside as ideas, 
images, and concepts, you are conflating the mode of knowing (being-in as 
within concentric domains) with the mode of readiness (being-in as 
already-alongside-entities as equipment good for....). Heidegger is very 
explicit about that in SuZ sections 12 and 13 John! This is a 
misinterpretation on the most basic level!

>Anthony wrote:
>
>Likewise, vice versa. Ontic means having to do with beings
>within the world
>(factical things, events, groups, etc.) Ontological means
>having to do with
>the Being of beings (the phenomenological structure of
>being-in-the-world).
>
>John here,
>
>actually this is not what Hiedegger has stated in his
>writings. Ontological refers to the logos (logical
>discussion through critical analysis of phenomenon what is
>ultimately real). The Being of beings may be understood in
>different ways: as God, as the Light of God, as the Ultimate
>Reality, et cetera, or simply as what presents in
>phenomenon.

Where in the world is this from? If God is an ontic entity, then of course 
that is not what I meant by the Being of beings! And to answer what I said 
above with the incredibly vague and general reply, "Ontological refers to 
the logos, logical discussion through critical analysis of phenomenon what 
is ultimately real" is completely meaningless! The ontological refers to the 
existential structure of Dasein. We can analyze Dasein's existential 
structure phenomenologically, but that is ontological ANALYSIS, not "the 
ontological" itself. The ontological itself is none other than Dasein 
itself. You are being so vague with terminology while pretending that you 
know what he is saying!

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus



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