Heidegger

Re: Root of ‘Being’ and the be-ing of root

michaelP wrote:

>say:

>the tree is green

>then the “is” is [!] perhaps a copula bringing tree and green(ness)
>together

>but say:

>the tree is

>then the “is” is [!] not a copula unless it brings the tree and
>nothingness together; the be-ing of the tree is affirmed (it is [!] not
>nothing, it stands out against nothingness, it is, (t)here is a tree,
>il y a

>the tree is says something other than the tree is green; the tree
>cannot be [!] green unless the tree is (although it has the possibility
>of being green)

>whatness (the tree is green, etc) and thatness (the tree is {not
>nothing}) are [!] bound together in (the) be-ing (say, of the tree)

there is a clean breakdown between asserting that I am and making a
claim as to what I am. there is a parallel division in the useage of
is/am.

when I assert that I am I use the intransitive form of is/am; but, when
I make a claim as to what I am, I use the copular form with an explicit
complement. of course, the mere statment that I am makes an implicit
assertion, that I stand out from nothingness; and, this is what is
asserted by the implicit complement.

>if predication is [!] saying something about something then to say it
>is is [!] to articulate the most primordial predicate; the firstness of
>be-ing is [!] the very prior of all priorities and is [!] hidden by/in
>all predications; its meaning is [!] known but hidden by what sayings
>say (in order that they may say anything); language is [!] the house
>(or rather, housing) of be-ing

that is/am asserts the root predicate (in your case ‘being’) is, indeed,
overlooked by the explicit assertions made about the subject of
discourse.

Joe

–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
 http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@

Posted on Monday, December 24th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback