Subject: Re: the o/o gulf
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 19:36:11 +0000


Rene de Bakker wrote:

>By Mohammed, Anthony, here in "The essence of ground" the o/o problematic 
>is
>getting more urging  - all your "PRIORS" are at risk -, that is one thing,
>and secondly
>the later remark adds a decisive retrospect. I don't say this to make you
>apologize,
>but I have written on this extensively earlier on.

You missed my entire argument Rene. I said YES, the "priors" (including the 
o/o distinction) are at risk, but not in the way YOU put them at risk. YOU 
put them at risk in the same way that the Enlightenment put them at risk - 
by never even distinguishing Being from beings. The reason I am saying that 
you are doing this is that this whole discussion started when I criticized 
John Foster for misinterpreting certain ontological terms ontically, such as 
mitsein, anxiety, being-alongside, etc.

For example, he interpreted mitsein has more of an affinity with a UN 
consensus than US unilateral action (hoping to give some kind of ontological 
justification for the anti-war side), when Heidegger explicitly says that 
mitsein already underlies ALL our attitudes and "opinions" towards others, 
not just the UN attitude or opinion. BOTH are ways of being-in-the-world. 
Similarly, he is now trying to interpret Heidegger's anxiety as having to do 
with the collapse of a specific ontic entity - the ecosystem (hoping to give 
some kind of ontological justification for Deep Ecology), when Heidegger 
explicitly says that anxiety is about the collapse of all involvement 
SIMPLY.

John then replied that the o/o distinction is merely "interpretative" and 
that in concrete, there is no such distinction, and you then SUPPORTED this 
by saying that the o/o distinction is ambiguous, referring to the texts we 
have been talking about. So you are attacking the o/o distinction from the 
same side that John Foster is - the Enlightenment side, which mistook beings 
for Being. Heidegger, on the other hand, "attacks" the o/o distinction only 
AFTER making it in the first place and using it to point the way. The way 
you are attacking the o/o distinction would not even allow it to point the 
way in the first place, because from the start we would be misinterpreting 
the UN for mistein, misinterpreting anxiety over the collapse of the 
ecosystem (or anything ontic) for anxiety over the collapse of all 
involvement as such. You can't defend such misinterpretations by appealing 
to the ultimate result (the collapse of the o/o distinction) because the 
correct interpretation of the o/o distinction is precisely what points the 
way to the ultimate result.

>First: the above is a remark to the following capitalized sentence of 1929:
>
>"Unveiledness of Being enables manifestness of beings. (More clearly
>(I can't help it): Enthuelltheit des Seins ermoeglicht erst Offenbarkeit
>von Seiendem.)
>This unveiledness as truth over Being (Wahrheit ueber das Sein) is called:
>*ontological truth*."
>
>The remark begins: Ambiguous! Ontological truth ....... etc.
>
>The remark thinks ontological truth from something new: Beying.
>Only here has become clear that fundamental ontology is as
>ambiguous - there is the word again, and it is Heidegger's
>confirmation - as (its) ontological truth.

Yes but not ambiguous in the way YOU have been arguing. You are arguing an 
ambiguity similar to the ambiguity between Being and beings in Enlightenment 
philosophy, as is John Foster. You have to crawl before you can walk.

>From Beying, ontological,
>that is now: METAPHYSICAL truth, because truth of beingNESS
>(entitas) according to CATEGORIES, is seen (not criticized) as
>ONE particular truth of Beying. Beying being that which can never
>be seen by metaphysical representation.
>
>So, what he retrospectively sees, is that he used a fundamental
>*metaphysical* distinction, in order to overcome metaphysics!
>But there is no other way, to get behind it.

Yes, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY. So you can't cut off that "way" from the start 
by defending the interpretation of mitsein as UN (united nations) friendly, 
or anxiety as about the collapse of an ecosystem, or such things. That is 
not getting behind it, becasue it is not even getting started in the first 
place! If someone mistakes beings for Being, you can't defend this by 
appealing to the ultimate dissolution of the o/o distinction, because that 
would be to defend the Enlightenment in the name of Being!

Anthony Crifasi

>I pause here, because if you don't act hermeneutically now and
>get stuck in an anti-desert, further discussion makes no sense,
>esp. because positions (Beying) are at stake, for which we're still
>much too green. It took Heidegger many years to break through
>subjective (in the widest sense) casting, transcendence, Dasein
>as the ontological clearmaker of the ontical.
>
>rene
>
>
>Focus: Being is hidden. It resists ontological understanding.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------
>drs. Rene de Bakker
>Universiteitsbibliotheek Amsterdam
>Afdeling Catalogisering
>tel. 020-5252368
>
>
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE 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 ---