Heidegger

Polanik’s manouevre:

> Heidegger is using ‘being’ as his root predicate (ie to carry the
> meaning ‘not nothing’) while we have been using ‘exists’ or ‘existence’;
> so, we must translate back and forth.

Joe, you seem to have consistently and repeatedly refused to think through
the oft suggested (Heidegger’s) be-ing as not just not-nothing but the very
processing of that ‘process’ whereby something present (say) presences, the
presencing of which is the active (verbal not nominal) insurrection
(insurrecting) against (and in/from) nothingness. The word ‘be-ing’ matters
not a jot; it does not signify as a ‘root (or any other) predicate’; it is
the very possibility of predication itself [see my previous post about
be-ing & predication].

regards

michaelP

Posted on Wednesday, April 16th, 2008 at 10:45 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback