Heidegger

In a message dated 28/11/2006 16:59:48 GMT Standard Time,
michael at sandwich-de-sign.co.uk writes:

MichaelE wrote not so recently:

> Heidegger’s determination of human being (Dasein) as exposure
> (Ausgesetzheit) to nothingness hits the mark. Nothingness is unlocatable in
any
> being. It is beyond the limit that defines a being _as_ a being — the
infinite
> without determination.

Michael, I’m not so sure that “beyond the limit” is the “infinite without
determination”. Perhaps the limit, the finitude, the bound of a
being-as-being, its de-finition, is not the infinite (the boundless) but
merely the not-that of the being, its edge, the other side of its edge,
rather, but the other (side) of *it* (s edge): its other, thus belonging to
its self, thus utterly finite too (determined by its self, its de-finition).
Not that being, certainly, but only the not-being of that being, its
(ownmost) not…

As Heidegger shows in The Anaximander Fragment, the apeiron (the
not-bounded) is not the formless infinite but the ‘process’ of coming into
be-ing and going out of be-ing, the refusal of the standstill, the exact
opposite of the usual formulation of be-ing as eternal constancy.

Or am I performing more crap ontological exercises?

Jud:
Yes. Compare: *Palilalia* - a condition in which a word is rapidly and
involuntarily repeated.
Apparently palilalia is not always extreme, as in the case of Heidegger and
his obsessional word: *Being,* but often the affliction manifests itself
in the milder form of synonymous and repetitive re-definition. According to
Thos. W. Grimble in his groundbreaking: The Heidegger Problem,* in the
*Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, * it is [quote] *…a sign of
communicative insecurity or indicative of the chronic angst which is said to
bedevil most transcendentalists and is the condition of suffering which
represents what attracts most sufferers to this curious version of folk philosophy?

Regarding *the not-that of the being, its edge, the other side of its edge*
It might by helpful if you concentrated or zoomed in on some hole or
another, if you can find one [you might even have one handy?] to consider where
the surrounding material [flesh, plastic, rock, water or whatever] ends and
*space* begins. On earth anyway, there is no *nothing* within a hole, it is
filled with a gas called oxygen - or - if it is a hole in the road - often with
water or labourers filling it in. Above the earth there is no *nothing*
either, for it is filled with photons, space-debris from human polluters, and
the micro-detritus of the universe and [according to most astrophysisits] *dark
matter.*

The *not-that of the being, its edge, the other side of its edge* suggests
that on Sunday the 4th of February 1829 there existed [or did not exist] the
not-that of the being or non-being of Michael Pennamacoor currently [2006] of
Sandwich, England. If that was true, then why should *the not-that of the
being or non-being of Michael Pennamacoor* be singled out for special
ontological or pre-ontological treatment? Why should not *the not-that of the being
or non-being of everybody else born into the world after Sunday the 4th of
February 1829* exist [or not exist too] AND all [the not-that of the being
or non-being of every artefact created after that date] OR every piece of
space debris that impacted and became part of our earth since the magic *BEING
OR NON-BEING EVALUATION DAY* on that ontologically exciting Sunday the 4th
of February 1829 of long ago?

regards,

Jud Evans.
Personal Website: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…

Posted on Tuesday, November 28th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback