The Oddness of the OD*
October 29th, 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 10/29/2007 10:21:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
R.B.M.deBakker at uva.nl writes:
…..before Descartes, without Descartes, the subject has not yet discovered
itself, ‘is’ not yet. Remaining on this
simple level - which is very much advisable - , the conclusion would be,
that before Descartes nothing
was. But also the nothing is not accepted by technological thinking.
So one better starts again all over, with Aristotle’s physis as the
way-of-being of everything which has
the arche of its being in itself. A tree is of itself. A tree appears of
itself.
Yes, of course, Rene, but the in itselfness posed here detaches the
entelechal nature of the tree from Aristotle’s prima materia and which is not the
arche of the tree but of its vas of containment as protohyle from which “tree” as
being out there (in the world) has been winnowed out (apocrisis) and which is
not much different from the notion of dasein. So right from the start and
without a lingusitic
is-ness being is revealed in its arche state as protohyle: as a that which is
without any evidence of an object nature. Only after the tree, or any object
phenomenon comes into appearance (morphe) is the in- its-selfness ascertained.
In this sense the arche of the tree is conditioned in being by that of the
protohylic arche that in itself cannot be phenomonen or shown in appearance. But
without this “invisible,” irrepresentable and formless Being it is not
possible to think of all that may daseinically come into being in the world of
appearence. The protohylic matrix thus prevails being in appearance as a *facultus
praeformandi.* Accordingly, isness is before it is as the silent cogito for
for all that be-comes as morphe, appearance and phainomenon. Descartes is saying
as much for the isness that is “I am” and by which *cogito* serves as the
dynamis qua energia of the Aristotelian entelechy. As a result “I am” arrives
covalent with the ability to Think (cogito).
sincerely;
Bernard
In a message dated 10/29/2007 10:21:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
R.B.M.deBakker at uva.nl writes:
The conclusion of the discussion of Aristotle’s distinction physis-techne,
was that the sense of being
attributed to physis: being-of-itself, is to be thought completely anew in an
era of unlimited techne.
Unlimited technology - which, rather than machinery, is a one-sided way of
thinking - functions such
that it is not able/willing to allow any other meaning of being than which it
knows, ‘is’ itself. Also in
discussions about Aristotle, Descartes, Heidegger. That in the Greek sphere
things are said to disclose
themselves (apophainesthai), is explained as if they are performing an
action, the kind of action which,
since Descartes, is claimed by the subject. But this cannot be the case, for
the simple reason, that before
Descartes, without Descartes, the subject has not yet discovered itself, ‘is’
not yet. Remaining on this
simple level - which is very much advisable - , the conclusion would be,
that before Descartes nothing
was. But also the nothing is not accepted by technological thinking.
So one better starts again all over, with Aristotle’s physis as the
way-of-being of everything which has
the arche of its being in itself. A tree is of itself. A tree appears of
itself.
rene
