Christopher, Thanks for the below post. It really helped. I think I get
it now. :)
rita
On Sun, 3 Dec 1995, Christopher Pound wrote:
> > Perhaps my question should have been, why peras and not apeiron? Why
> > limit, goal, and not boundlessness?
>
> Circa 1924 through BT, I think it's as simple as this: the only way
> to give something a concrete definition is to find its limit. Something
> shows itself for what it is when you understand its limit. It is only
> meaningful if limited. Dasein's possibilities seem very abstract, but
> establishing Dasein as limited makes them much less so -- they're inside
> a well-defined limit.
>
> Boundlessness is much more abstract. You're no longer among beings.
> For Dasein it would mean pretending to immortality. Lack of contrast
> saps everything of meaning. There's a sense in which everydayness
> lacks such contrast, for example, even if it _seems_ more concrete in
> its particulars.
>
> Later on, for Heidegger, I don't know. I don't recall the details, but I
> think he says more things (perhaps more interesting things) about apeiron
> in _Basic Concepts_. I don't know where else.
>
> --
> Christopher Pound (pound@xxxxxxxx)
> Dept. of Anthropology, Rice University
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
it now. :)
rita
On Sun, 3 Dec 1995, Christopher Pound wrote:
> > Perhaps my question should have been, why peras and not apeiron? Why
> > limit, goal, and not boundlessness?
>
> Circa 1924 through BT, I think it's as simple as this: the only way
> to give something a concrete definition is to find its limit. Something
> shows itself for what it is when you understand its limit. It is only
> meaningful if limited. Dasein's possibilities seem very abstract, but
> establishing Dasein as limited makes them much less so -- they're inside
> a well-defined limit.
>
> Boundlessness is much more abstract. You're no longer among beings.
> For Dasein it would mean pretending to immortality. Lack of contrast
> saps everything of meaning. There's a sense in which everydayness
> lacks such contrast, for example, even if it _seems_ more concrete in
> its particulars.
>
> Later on, for Heidegger, I don't know. I don't recall the details, but I
> think he says more things (perhaps more interesting things) about apeiron
> in _Basic Concepts_. I don't know where else.
>
> --
> Christopher Pound (pound@xxxxxxxx)
> Dept. of Anthropology, Rice University
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---