Leapers and bounders and shifters and breakers
Michael Eldred speaks of the difference between appearance and truth as a
chasm, an abgrund over which we must leap, a chasm that lies between two
loci of the truth of being. Such a leap is made in thinking (Being) and is
also a leap from thinking beings to thinking Being, from meta ta physica to
what? The other side of the chasm from the hold of meta-physics is perhaps
not answerable as a what, is not a domain of whatness. Such a leap is not
>from one always-already-given locus to an other equally already... as if
they were present on a map. Such a leap would seem to create or rather
bring-forward the two sides into the open such that they could be seen as
two sides (like the banks of Heidegger's river that the bridge brings out
in its bridging). The leap then is a leaping, a leaping across that makes a
crossing, an acrossing that betweens. Metaphysics and its metaphysical
devastation as positivism and sociology is then a permanent possibility in
the thinking of what is rather than an historical aberration that some form
of progress will obliterate or overcome. It is brought out into the open as
the oblivion of Being through its eclipse by beings in the leap across the
bound of the abyss in the thinking of Being. Being appears in a being
because beings are (always beings in their Being). Appearance is always
appearance of (some thing). In a sense appearance and Being (are) the same:
they differ by nothing: their difference (is) nothing, the abyss (is) all
that separates them. The leap ignites their outlines, lights up their
profiles. They show each other through the leap, the leap that (is)
thinking, the leap that is a light(e)ning flash, the spark that reveals.
There (is) only Being and appearance (is) needed by it (but not as some
thing else: as it self).
What leaps over what?
MP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Michael Eldred speaks of the difference between appearance and truth as a
chasm, an abgrund over which we must leap, a chasm that lies between two
loci of the truth of being. Such a leap is made in thinking (Being) and is
also a leap from thinking beings to thinking Being, from meta ta physica to
what? The other side of the chasm from the hold of meta-physics is perhaps
not answerable as a what, is not a domain of whatness. Such a leap is not
>from one always-already-given locus to an other equally already... as if
they were present on a map. Such a leap would seem to create or rather
bring-forward the two sides into the open such that they could be seen as
two sides (like the banks of Heidegger's river that the bridge brings out
in its bridging). The leap then is a leaping, a leaping across that makes a
crossing, an acrossing that betweens. Metaphysics and its metaphysical
devastation as positivism and sociology is then a permanent possibility in
the thinking of what is rather than an historical aberration that some form
of progress will obliterate or overcome. It is brought out into the open as
the oblivion of Being through its eclipse by beings in the leap across the
bound of the abyss in the thinking of Being. Being appears in a being
because beings are (always beings in their Being). Appearance is always
appearance of (some thing). In a sense appearance and Being (are) the same:
they differ by nothing: their difference (is) nothing, the abyss (is) all
that separates them. The leap ignites their outlines, lights up their
profiles. They show each other through the leap, the leap that (is)
thinking, the leap that is a light(e)ning flash, the spark that reveals.
There (is) only Being and appearance (is) needed by it (but not as some
thing else: as it self).
What leaps over what?
MP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---