Heidegger

Joseph Polanik wrote:
If you want to translate phenomenological texts or statements into
english and you want to retain the middle voice flavor of the ancient
greek, use the first form of the middle voice I gave above.
‘appears’ is good for this purpose and is the way most sensible
translators of phenomenological texts would say what you […]

The conclusion of the discussion of Aristotle’s distinction physis-techne, was that the sense of being
attributed to physis: being-of-itself, is to be thought completely anew in an era of unlimited techne.
Unlimited technology - which, rather than machinery, is a one-sided way of thinking - functions such
that it is not able/willing to […]

In a message dated 29/10/2007 01:50:51 GMT Standard Time, Bernx at aol.com
writes:
In a message dated 10/28/2007 6:13:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
artefact at t-online.de writes:
Heidegger often renders “phenomenon”, “das Phänomen” as “das Sichzeigende”,
i.e. literally “that which shows itself”. Modern English is a poor language
for this, because it does not have many reflexive verbs […]

In a message dated 10/28/2007 6:13:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
artefact at t-online.de writes:
Heidegger often renders “phenomenon”, “das Phänomen” as “das Sichzeigende”,
i.e. literally “that which shows itself”. Modern English is a poor language
for this, because it does not have many reflexive verbs (unlike German), and
has no MIDDLE voice at all (unlike ancient Greek). To translate German
reflexive […]

In a message dated 28/10/2007 _artefact at t-online.de_
(mailto:artefact@t-online.de) writes:
Cologne 28-Oct-2007
Michael Eldred wrote:
Dr. Fallacia:
If the “physical being” does not show itself AS such-and-such, the “I”
cannot discover it.
the question is: did the inkblot show itself to be the bat or did you
discover the bat in the inkblot?
Dr. Fallacia:
Here there are at […]

Cologne 28-Oct-2007
Joseph Polanik schrieb Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:07:56 -0500:
> Michael Eldred wrote:
> >
> > Joseph Polanik http://what-am-i.net schrieb
> >
> >>Michael Eldred wrote:
>
> >>>ME: If the “physical being” does not show itself AS such-and-such,
> >>>the “I” cannot discover it.
> >>
> >>the question is: did the inkblot show […]

In a message dated 10/27/2007 4:23:29 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
jPolanik at nc.rr.com writes:
yes, it takes considerable apparatus to observe a subatomic particle;
but, the question is: does the particle disclose itself or does the
physicist discover its properties?
how can a particle disclose its dynamic properties (eg its spin) when
those properties don’t even have […]

In a message dated 10/28/2007 7:22:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jPolanik at nc.rr.com writes:
Bernx at aol.com wrote:
>*The fallacy here is to confound “thinking” with “experience,” the
>speculation that Descartes didn’t know the difference between thinking
>and experience and “really” intended *experience* when he used the term
>*cogito.* The evidence to this is the lack of *is* and the […]

In a message dated 28/10/2007 _artefact at t-online.de_
(mailto:artefact@t-online.de) writes:
Joe:
Did the number 3 disclose itself as a prime number; or, did some ancient
mathematician discover that three was a prime number?
ME:
Again you offer only an either-or choice between a subject discovering or a
being disclosing itself. Why not both or why not a third alternative?
Jud:
Because only a […]

Cologne 28-Oct-2007
Joseph Polanik http://what-am-i.net schrieb Sat, 27 Oct 2007 06:14:36 -0400:
> Michael Eldred wrote:
> >
> > Joseph Polanik schrieb :
> >
> >>Michael Eldred wrote:
>
> >>>No being _is_ without showing itself _as_ such-and-such for
> >>>understanding. So the being of a being and the disclosure of that
> >>>being belong together
>
> […]