> What is literal truth? The truth of a literal meaning said with letters,
in
> a
> statement. What exactly demarcates a literal (letteral) statement from a
> metaphorical (carried-over) one? At what point precisely do letters
> starting
> allowing themselves to be carried away?
A good topic. How about this for a first guess: The literal truth is the
being pointed to by the words. That is, the focal meaning of the being.
e.g. "ass" points to the animal, even though a derivative (metaphorical)
meaning could be "stupid person"
> Another example (more seriously now): What is the literal meaning of
space?
Aristotle treats this in Physics IV. The best place to begin.
> Not at all pious. Aletheia is not from a god. Aletheia is the propriation
> of
> being itself in claiming human being to be open to being. The event of
> aletheia
> is tautological, moving from itself to itself. There's nothing holy about
> it -
> it is mundane in the literal sense: world-building.
This sounds pretty dogmatic. Which is okay as long as we understand why.
Why does aletheia as you understand it necessarily exclude a god?
> No. Correspondence is traditionally the translation of adaequatio, which
is
> in
> turn the translation of Aristotelian homoiosis: adequation of the
statement
>
> (logos) to the thing itself. Relation is much broader and weaker: "pros
> ti", the
> third category. For nous to grasp beings in their being and speak it out,
> there
> must first be an openness of being in which beings are 'sighted' by nous,
> i.e.
> beings as such are given to nous to grasp. Nous does not first create the
How is openness different from the passive intellect?
> openness within which beings in their being appear. Nous can only take in
> (vernehmen) what is given to it, which does not contradict it being
> "self-moving". (Kant located this giving power in pure reason. Heidegger
> took
> this one step further and locates it in the event of propriation itself.)
Where did Aristotle locate this giving power?
> The
> correspondence between thinking and being in the most fundamental (i.e.
> abyssal, fundamentless) sense is the response of thinking to being's
> propriation. This response provides the primordial de-lineation of beings
> as
> such for human being.
How is the response of thinking to being's propriation any different from
mystical insight?
> Truth as adaequatio does not include falsity but is its opposite. But
truth
> as
> adaequatio presupposes truth as aletheia (Entbergung - which is
> misleadingly
> translated as 'revelation'), the openness of being that opens the
> difference
> between being and beings.
This could just be a misinterpretation of adequatio. I suspect so.
> Yes, because the structure of the essence of dynamis includes energeia as
> one of
> its moments, not the other way round. Dynamis as a mode of being (as
> treated in
> Aristotle's Metaphysics Theta) is a point of origin having dominion over
a
> change of state in something else, or within itself insofar as it is
> something
> else (arche metaboles en alloi e hei allo).
> Dynamis (force, potential, capacity, capability) has dominion over a
change
> in
> beings. When this change takes place, dynamis is in action, it is at
work,
> i.e.
> it is in-work-ness, which is nothing other than what energeia says:
> en-erg-eia.
In one sense dunamis is nothing yet in another it is not nothing. Is
something better than nothing? Is dunamis a something?
> Both physis and poiesis are dynamai, the latter being guided by logos
> (poiesis =
> dynamis meta logou). The famous example of architecture (the very word
> conforms
> with the essence of dynamis) as dynamis meta logou makes this clearer:
> Architecture is primarily knowledge (in-sight into the telos) and as such
a
>
> force/potential for changing the state of matter from rocks, timber,
sand,
> etc.
> into the end (telos) of a house/building or what-have-you. The change of
> state
> is guided by the logos which fore-sees the changes to be made to achieve
> the end
> in sight. Architecture as energeia is architecture at work, in action,
> in-work-ness, actualizing itself in building a building in which
> architecture
> then has itself in its end: in-end-having-ness or en-tel-ech-eia. Dynamis
> encompasses not only its energeia (in-work-ness) as a mode of being, but
> also
> its entelecheia. Quod erat demonstrandum.
It seems this is just one interpretation of entelecheia and energeia (the
Heideggerian one) which I think is incomplete.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
in
> a
> statement. What exactly demarcates a literal (letteral) statement from a
> metaphorical (carried-over) one? At what point precisely do letters
> starting
> allowing themselves to be carried away?
A good topic. How about this for a first guess: The literal truth is the
being pointed to by the words. That is, the focal meaning of the being.
e.g. "ass" points to the animal, even though a derivative (metaphorical)
meaning could be "stupid person"
> Another example (more seriously now): What is the literal meaning of
space?
Aristotle treats this in Physics IV. The best place to begin.
> Not at all pious. Aletheia is not from a god. Aletheia is the propriation
> of
> being itself in claiming human being to be open to being. The event of
> aletheia
> is tautological, moving from itself to itself. There's nothing holy about
> it -
> it is mundane in the literal sense: world-building.
This sounds pretty dogmatic. Which is okay as long as we understand why.
Why does aletheia as you understand it necessarily exclude a god?
> No. Correspondence is traditionally the translation of adaequatio, which
is
> in
> turn the translation of Aristotelian homoiosis: adequation of the
statement
>
> (logos) to the thing itself. Relation is much broader and weaker: "pros
> ti", the
> third category. For nous to grasp beings in their being and speak it out,
> there
> must first be an openness of being in which beings are 'sighted' by nous,
> i.e.
> beings as such are given to nous to grasp. Nous does not first create the
How is openness different from the passive intellect?
> openness within which beings in their being appear. Nous can only take in
> (vernehmen) what is given to it, which does not contradict it being
> "self-moving". (Kant located this giving power in pure reason. Heidegger
> took
> this one step further and locates it in the event of propriation itself.)
Where did Aristotle locate this giving power?
> The
> correspondence between thinking and being in the most fundamental (i.e.
> abyssal, fundamentless) sense is the response of thinking to being's
> propriation. This response provides the primordial de-lineation of beings
> as
> such for human being.
How is the response of thinking to being's propriation any different from
mystical insight?
> Truth as adaequatio does not include falsity but is its opposite. But
truth
> as
> adaequatio presupposes truth as aletheia (Entbergung - which is
> misleadingly
> translated as 'revelation'), the openness of being that opens the
> difference
> between being and beings.
This could just be a misinterpretation of adequatio. I suspect so.
> Yes, because the structure of the essence of dynamis includes energeia as
> one of
> its moments, not the other way round. Dynamis as a mode of being (as
> treated in
> Aristotle's Metaphysics Theta) is a point of origin having dominion over
a
> change of state in something else, or within itself insofar as it is
> something
> else (arche metaboles en alloi e hei allo).
> Dynamis (force, potential, capacity, capability) has dominion over a
change
> in
> beings. When this change takes place, dynamis is in action, it is at
work,
> i.e.
> it is in-work-ness, which is nothing other than what energeia says:
> en-erg-eia.
In one sense dunamis is nothing yet in another it is not nothing. Is
something better than nothing? Is dunamis a something?
> Both physis and poiesis are dynamai, the latter being guided by logos
> (poiesis =
> dynamis meta logou). The famous example of architecture (the very word
> conforms
> with the essence of dynamis) as dynamis meta logou makes this clearer:
> Architecture is primarily knowledge (in-sight into the telos) and as such
a
>
> force/potential for changing the state of matter from rocks, timber,
sand,
> etc.
> into the end (telos) of a house/building or what-have-you. The change of
> state
> is guided by the logos which fore-sees the changes to be made to achieve
> the end
> in sight. Architecture as energeia is architecture at work, in action,
> in-work-ness, actualizing itself in building a building in which
> architecture
> then has itself in its end: in-end-having-ness or en-tel-ech-eia. Dynamis
> encompasses not only its energeia (in-work-ness) as a mode of being, but
> also
> its entelecheia. Quod erat demonstrandum.
It seems this is just one interpretation of entelecheia and energeia (the
Heideggerian one) which I think is incomplete.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---