Heidegger

In a message dated 5/26/2008 10:28:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jPolanik at nc.rr.com writes:

traditionally, ’self-existence’ is ascribed only to god. self-existence
is “Inherent existence; existence possessed by virtue of a being’s own
nature, and independent of any other being or cause; — an attribute
peculiar to God.”
 http://thinkexist.com/dictionary/meaning…]

surely when you said that ‘I remain self-identical throughout all my
perceptions’ is ‘a necessary condition of my existence’ you weren’t
speaking as God. so not all existence is self-existence. so maybe you
should tell us whether you’ve redefined your terms or decided to retool
your argument or what

Joe

Joe: “Self-existence” has little to do with “existence” mainly because
*autos* has to do with God and man in the “image” of God. Accordingly, a notion of
self-existence is identical to non-existence or Self prior to its dasein or
what Anaximander called the *apocrisis* (of apieron). This state of “no-thing”
(as undifferentiated ousia) Aristotle understood as pure potential and which
is, as prima materia, pure essence or state of unqualified Being. If such was
not the case *apocrisis* or “winnowing out” qua dasein would be without ground.
Unfortunately Heidegger has run these imperative principles through the
meat-grinder, not of ratio
but the masturbatory process of self-prediciating dialectic analytics. The
result is the thinking man’s problem of not dealing with philosophy as the
preparation for death for the simple reason that there was no birth (of Logos) in
the first place. With all the crap that goes on here it is about time Nous was
to free itself from its uterine entrappment (unborn-ness) and commence its
apocrisis in the world of differentiated *ide* (beings).
Bernard

**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch “Cooking with
Tyler Florence” on AOL Food.
 http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video…)

Posted on Sunday, June 8th, 2008 at 6:06 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback