At 04:13 AM 11/4/95 -0500, you wrote:
>>for n/ev er r/is[..]sunder stan ding *being* as pol*is* h...
>>
>>th es i(gh)t e of ort (w)ort...(m)ort... be(i)ng is/(k)no/t(s)he cl ear
>>(i)ng:
>>a n ear (i)n gd (r)is[..]s tance
>>a/s o v er(r)eign *is*
>>as ad v ent ure
>>ad(e s)ign at (i)ng
>>an a re a : as p(l)ace for t(s)he da nce...
>
>Mr. Clark,
>I haven't got the hermeneutic stamina to decipher this kind of 'writing.'
>Do you take pleasure in giving people a hard time understanding your
>thoughts? If your motivation is vastly more complex, I'd indulge you to
>explain something of it to me, and perhaps give me a 'translation' (with
>all of the Heideggerian difficulty it may entail) of this last statement,
>as I find quite interesting the relation of the polis and being, but am
>incapable of reading your message. Is such writing meant to be
>decipherable? Parts of it, like the '(w)ort...' make especially little
>sense to me, nor the addition of the occasional inexplicable
>parenthetically-bracketed vowel or consonant.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Colin F. Wilder
>niloc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
grammatical connection b(l)ind s
a metaphysical legacy each word b ear s in
its collusion with the supreme conjuring trick of SIGNification...
to/two/too see or (k)not to/two/too see the for es t...
for t re es that both obscure and reve(a)l...
for es t at (i)on as de(a)for es t at (i)on...
ac l ear(i)ng that n ear s it (e)s
dis/ris[..]stance... a re s[is]dance
be t wean an un fol ding an d/a to/two/too gath er(r)s(i)ng
hymn...
"...But where the danger is,grows
The saving-power also."
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>>for n/ev er r/is[..]sunder stan ding *being* as pol*is* h...
>>
>>th es i(gh)t e of ort (w)ort...(m)ort... be(i)ng is/(k)no/t(s)he cl ear
>>(i)ng:
>>a n ear (i)n gd (r)is[..]s tance
>>a/s o v er(r)eign *is*
>>as ad v ent ure
>>ad(e s)ign at (i)ng
>>an a re a : as p(l)ace for t(s)he da nce...
>
>Mr. Clark,
>I haven't got the hermeneutic stamina to decipher this kind of 'writing.'
>Do you take pleasure in giving people a hard time understanding your
>thoughts? If your motivation is vastly more complex, I'd indulge you to
>explain something of it to me, and perhaps give me a 'translation' (with
>all of the Heideggerian difficulty it may entail) of this last statement,
>as I find quite interesting the relation of the polis and being, but am
>incapable of reading your message. Is such writing meant to be
>decipherable? Parts of it, like the '(w)ort...' make especially little
>sense to me, nor the addition of the occasional inexplicable
>parenthetically-bracketed vowel or consonant.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Colin F. Wilder
>niloc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
grammatical connection b(l)ind s
a metaphysical legacy each word b ear s in
its collusion with the supreme conjuring trick of SIGNification...
to/two/too see or (k)not to/two/too see the for es t...
for t re es that both obscure and reve(a)l...
for es t at (i)on as de(a)for es t at (i)on...
ac l ear(i)ng that n ear s it (e)s
dis/ris[..]stance... a re s[is]dance
be t wean an un fol ding an d/a to/two/too gath er(r)s(i)ng
hymn...
"...But where the danger is,grows
The saving-power also."
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---