Heidegger

Cologne 13-Jan-2008

michaelP schrieb Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:19:39 +0000:

> Joe sayeth:
>
> > I’m using ‘x is x is not nothing’ as a way of defining ‘is’ thru its
> > use.
>
> MP: Yes, Joe, but this ‘definition’ only de-fines ‘is’ insofar as ‘is’ is [!]
> not nothing; thus, you say ‘is’ is [!] not nothing, that the limit/bound
> (de-fine-ition) of is (be-ing) is [!] the other side (as it were) of
> nothingness; so, in a sense [I am, of course, using spatial metaphors since
> your notion of de-finition suggests it), you have, in order to de-fine
> (place limits and bounds) be-ing, made be-ing over to some kind of
> geographical or topological placing with respect to nothingness, as in a
> drawing a line across the space of everything-that-is, where be-ing (or more
> strictly, beings-as-a-whole) sits on one side and nothingness on the other,
> like two mutually exclusive and independent sets. The trouble with this (to
> be elaborated in another post) is (apart from de-fining be-ing at all, which
> seems be-side the point for that which is [!] not a being…)) is that
> everything-that-is must include nothingness (or, for your system, the empty
> set) since nothingness (and the empty set) is too, as does the set of
> everything-that-is; thus, the two sides of the de-fining line or circle are
> mutually entangled. Or, for ontologists, nothingness belongs to be-ing; the
> irruption of a being in/from nothingness continues the nothingness (the
> irruption of be-ing is the very presencing (irrupting) of the present being
> that is and not just a moving permanently away from nothingness) within its
> self in order to be at all; be-ing is [!] not that a being may be; the
> relation can not be de-fined (although it can be pointed to) and attempting
> to de-fine be-ing is to cover/hide be-ing in/with a de-fined being = to
> completely misunderstand be-ing (only beings can be de-fined). Your
> logico-technological apparatuses of formal logic and set representation,
> etc, completely make over be-ing (the ‘is’ of all-that-is) to a de-fined,
> ‘en-setted’ [sorry] being, and thus the attempt to grasp be-ing with such
> apparatuses ends up clasping a being instead, thus both missing and
> confirming the ontological difference at the same time…
>

ME: You must be reading Hegel under the bed-clothes at night. You’re spot on.
Being itself cannot be defined, for to define it is to inscribe a limiting
determination. Therefore there is no difference between being and nothingness.
They are both in-finite.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact at t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred (c)_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

Posted on Sunday, January 13th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback