Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:47:21 +0000
Subject: 'art of gloss


> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3129817641_1670838_MIME_Part

RickWrote:

> But to create one must not say, or rather say then
> have it so; one must distinguish from what is not,
> interpret, and let it be from the shadow of being.

When language occurs, eventuates, the glossing of being takes place as does
the revelation of some being and precisely in correspondence with such
glossing; when being is addressed as something that can be topicalised
(e.g., in an attempt at ontological speech) being is in that very breath
transformed into yet another being, glossed, let be in the "shadow of
being", and being itself then becomes the topicalising of what is
topicalised (being transformed into a topicalisable being), and thus not
addressed, although invoked. Being, is, moving with Heraclitus a moment,
always already the cryptic, one step back [mention: Blanchot?] from whatever
sits in up front (some being, however broad, however inclusive, however
general, however ubiquitous, however superior, however...).

Thinking being is the art of gloss?

Let go.

michaelP


--MS_Mac_OE_3129817641_1670838_MIME_Part

HTML VERSION:

> But to create one must not say, or rather say then
> have it so; one must distinguish from what is not,
> interpret, and let it be from the shadow of being.