Heidegger

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 verbs, English usually (misleadingly) resorts to PASSIVE voice.
Thus, for example, “Es zeigt sich, daß…” is rendered “It becomes apparent
that…” A key word in phenomenology, namely “phenomenon”, is from Gk.
_phainomenon_, the present participle in the middle or passive voice of _phainein_
employed as a noun. The middle voice character of _to phainomenon_ comes across in
German by rendering it as “das Sichzeigende”, literally, “that which shows
itself”, whereas modern English resorts invariably to a passive construction, “that
which is shown”. The excellent standard reference Benseler says of _to
phainomenon_ “der Schein, das was sich jmdm. in der Erscheinung so zeigt”, i..e. “the
manifestation, that which
shows itself to someone in the appearance”, as opposed to “_to dokoun_, was
er in seinen Gedanken dafür hält” (”what he holds to be in his thoughts”). _To
dokoun_ is what seems to be and what is held to be such-and-such in opinion
(_doxa_).

Michael;
It becomes apparent here that the German syntax projects the “I” (ego) into
*phenomenon* so that it is able to speak for itself (”that which shows
itself”). The object (phenomenon) as such is thus allowed an autonomy be depriving
the ego of its “I-ness.” But then the object in turn loses its “thatness” as
object “out there” (”that which is shown”) which it would be less in passive
voice (in English) insofar as “thatness” indicates the separateness of subject
and object. In this sense, English, following Latin is significatory (semiotic)
whereas the reflexive German remains comfortable with connotation and that
which remains in contingency to the symbolic. The symbolic is, however, open
ended and cannot be confined as a limited signification. This is a special
problem in English where the semiotic is invariably used intechangeably with the
symbolic indicating as such that signification (as sign) is easily confounded
for the connotative symbol. My only explanation for this is that the German has
an extensive built in use for *ur* in its predications whereas English does
not so that, for example, *ur-gestalt* remains an empty class because it eludes
the fixity of sign and signification. As a resutl the *ur* reality is only
addressed in English by the predicate of negation and by which it is
desubstantiated, eg., the ur reality as the “un”-conscious. On the other hand the only
English word that implies ur-ness is “original” qua *ur-iginal.* In the Greek
this is served as *archai* and which also retains ur-ness. Unfortuantely,
however, for the most part, ur and archai are reduced simply to “old” or prime in the
sense of “first” thus confounding *the original* as in the past. In English,
for example, the word *archetype* subordinates the *arche* to *typos*
(”stamping” as significatory) and conveniently losing arche and ur-ness. Hence,
semiotics displaces the symbolical in English and perhaps in the Romance Languages
(the Latin vulgate). But however the reflexive is compared to the passive
syntax ur-ness for the latter is distorted as merely a premise predicated in
negation. But the difference suggests that the in-here-ness of *ur* may account for
the German problem with *sein* and the need for Heidegger to advocate dasein
and thus enjoy the object nature (in the world) by which object and being may
be accommodated. To say this a German “problem,” however is misleading insofar
as the Germanic consciousness qua the linguistic enjoys (or suffers) a
radical difference to the “allies” of the Anglo/Latinate indicating, notwithstanding
English as essentially Anglo-Saxon as such that whereas Ceasar and Rome
Romanized Britain it could not do as much for the Germans east of the Rhine much
less the Weser.
Sincerely;
Bernard

************************************** See what’s new at http://www.aol.com

Posted on Monday, October 29th, 2007 at 1:50 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback