Subject: Re: the o/o gulf
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:27:13 +0000


Rene de Bakker wrote:

> >>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

If by the "opaque interweaving" of the ontic with the ontological you simply 
mean that Dasein is always ALREADY thrown, well then of course, but nothing 
I have said disagrees with that Rene! There is still an ontic/ontological 
distinction in the phenomenological analysis of Dasein! THAT is what I am 
saying that some here have conflated, by misinterpreting some ontological 
elements of Dasein's structure as ontic facticities (e.g., anxiety, mitsein, 
most recently being-alongside, ethics). To distinguish the ontic from the 
ontological in a phenomenological analysis is not the same as to deny that 
Dasein is always thrown in a factical world. So you cannot reply to my 
distinctions by saying that I am denying Dasein's necessary thrownness, 
because to distinguish the ontic from the ontological in phenomenological 
analysis does not deny that - otherwise, Heidegger himself would be making 
that mistake on every page of SuZ.

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail



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