Heidegger

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 (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

Jud:
A good explanation of why the barbaric German tongue remains enfeebled and
utterly useless for ontological investigation.

Regards,

Jud
Personal Website: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…

“In nuclear war all men are cremated equal.”
Dexter Gordon

Posted on Monday, October 29th, 2007 at 1:55 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback