Heidegger

—–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
Van: heidegger-bounces at soca.ecu.edu.au
[mailto:heidegger-bounces@soca.ecu.edu.au]Namens Anthony Crifasi
Verzonden: zaterdag 10 juni 2006 2:44
Aan: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
Onderwerp: Re: slow (was: Germans outplayed by Ahmadinejad
intheirownSpiegel/Mirror)

—– Original Message —–
From: “michaelP”

> nah, nah, anthony: rene has something extraordinary to say (and says it,
> sometimes) but you only seem to hear (and respond to) what he speaks
> (concretely) and not listen to what he says (a ‘visible’ but tangled crypt
> within and carried by the speaking); perhaps slow down and tune in to a
> different wave?

Michael, can’t polls also *say* beyond what they concretely speak? Just as
Rene casts factical terror, massmurder etc as *ontologically* conspicuous, I
do the same with polls - if you can hear more than just the bare numbers.
What is offensive - which is why I only seem to hear and respond to what he
speaks - is that when Rene explicitly presents facticals in such ontological
vein, my factical challenge to his facticals is then dismissed (not only by
Rene, but also by you, Michael) as merely descending to the horizoned as
opposed to the horizon and that which horizons. That is inconsistent. If
Rene can say the ontological through speaking facticals, then so can I

Oh? Then you have to take care that we mean the same. Without that,
every word means differently, esp. between us there is the most
extreme difference. I would be very worried if any word you use
corresponds to mine. Here you seem now to thinkk differently.

I have no time to go further into it, but it all comes from the
most fatal way of thinking: taking everything always already as
the same. Not you are doing this, it is done for one.

My daughter asked me: what is the difference between beings-as-whole
and Being? I said: Beings-as-a-whole is what everybody gets free.
Being is what one must oneself do. I think i made myself very clear
the last time, in that it only makes sense to discuss Being, if one
is not chained to beings-as-a-whole. And i warned that in that position
one has the choice either of shrinking or lying. Again, i don’t care
at all if the most wild fantasies become one’s home, because this is
factually the case for a long time already. As long as you make yourself
dependent on the extreme machinations with facts, you are undermining
your own idea of knowledge, religion etc. And this undermining is what
is ontically, factually happening, held fast by ontological neglect.
It can only become worse.

rene

- and
the factical refutation of his facticals then has direct ontological
bearing. This inconsistency, therefore, bespeaks a certain selectiveness
which is not philosophical - i.e., it seems that polls only technologize
people when they disprove certain claims of terror, massmurder, massacre
etc. Not necessarily.

Posted on Monday, June 12th, 2006 at 9:25 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback