The Oddness of the OD
October 11th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: The Oddness of the OD :: The Oddness of the OD :: The Oddness of the OD :: The Oddness of the OD
In a message dated 10/11/2007 2:12:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
crifasian at sbcglobal.net writes:
“This distinction is grasped since Being and Time as
“ontological difference” - with the intention of
safeguarding the question of the truth of being from
all confusion. But this distinction is immediately
pushed in the direction from which it comes. For here
beingsness is claimed as ousia, idea; and following
these, the objectness is claimed as condition for the
possibility of the object. Therefore, in attempting to
overcome the first effort at the question of being in
Being and Time and its emanations, varying attempts
were needed to master the “ontological difference,” to
grasp its very origin and that means its genuine
onefold. Therefore, the effort was needed to come free
of the “condition for the possibility” as going back
into the merely “mathematical” and to grasp the truth
of being from within its own essential sway
(enowning). Hence the tormenting and discording
character of this distinction. For as necessary as
this distinction is (to think in traditional terms),
in order to provide at all a preliminary perspective
for the question of being, just as disastrous does
this distinction continue to be. For this distinction
indeed does arise from a questioning of beings as such
(of beingness). But in this way one never arrives
directly at the question of being. In other words,
this distinction itself becomes the real barrier which
misplaces the inquiry into the question of being,
insofar as, by presupposing this distinction, one
attempts to go further than this distinction and to
inquire into its onefold. This onefold can never be
anything but the mirroring of the distinction and can
never lead to the origin, in view of which this
distinction can no longer be seen as originary.
Therefore the task is not to surpass beings
(transcendence) but rather to leap over this
distinction and thus over transcendence and to inquire
inceptually into being and truth.” (Contributions,
B150)
Yes, but all of this heterophobic conundrum of arguing the necessity of the
other difference prevails simply because ousia is taken sui generis precluding
as such the protohyle or apieron of Anaximander or, for that (sic) matter, the
first day of creation in Genesis of the O.T. or more lately, the massa
confusa of Alchemy.
Sincerely,
Bernard
************************************** See what’s new at http://www.aol.com
