Vienna, September 23 1996
dear michael,
you say:
>Anything which is not information today is not.
The new moons of Jupiter dis-covered recently by Voyager _are_ nothing
other than
the electromagnetic impressions the satellite sent back to Earth. Being
needs
humankind. <
Right, but as usual with "nothing other than" this means a Seinsentwurf. We
are designing Being starting from virtuality in the computer, so that 'real
things' appear 'nothing other than'. I call this: esse i s computari
(changing Berkeley's dictum)
You write:
>The idea of weak technology as allowing incidents and accidents to be could
take us further. Joe Sachs' translation of "kata symbebekos" as
"incidentally" is
indeed better. It's like the alternatives between "zufaellig" and
"beilaeufig" in´German. The incidental/Beilaeufige has a lighter touch, does
not push its
way into such a prominent stand in presence, comes and goes as it likes.
Aristotle's metaphysics, in this regard at least, offers a way of weakening
technology by
making room for the incidental? It contrasts with Leibniz's "nihil est sine
ratione", "nothing is without a ground/reason", which leaves no room for the
incidental but instead plasters over every crack and crevice in the being of
beings with causation. <
I find also a connection with in the Middle Ages (for instance Thomas
Aquinas) was called "casualia et fortuita". In my investigations of Aquinas'
theory of the angels, these had a metaphysical knowledge of reality
(starting from the prima principia, but without to look through time and
discourse to the consequences), but they were limited with regard to two
points:
they could not know in advance about Christ's incarnation
they could not know about casualia and fortuita in advance!
Your write:
>Der Denker ist Mit-ent-werfer des Seins des Seienden.
Your angeloi seem to come in here: bearers of the missives of beyng. They do
not bear pre-formulated messages but write in midflight. <
In what sense is 'everyone' a Mit-ent-werfer des Seins and in what sense are
thinkers, poets, politicians etc? in what sense are we (who?) not? or in
what sense are we limited (by whom? by what?)?
We are 'Mit'entwerfer. Who are the others? Under metaphysical premises was
it not possible (?) because God was the creator? Plato's demiourg seems
(according to the end of the Sophist) to have created things in a more
original way (maybe even ex nihilo?) than we (as poietikoi) do. Does this
shaping of things entails always a draft of being?
This brings me back to the 'nothing other than': we are supposed to be
Mit-entwerfer. There is always something else, so that it is impossible to
shape in the sense of 'nothing other than'
Bearers of the missives of beyng makes a difference to bearers of the
missives of a god. In what sense? Are we bearers of missives or are we
ourselves missives? Ein Zeichen sind wir, deutungslos... (Hoelderlin, is
this the right citation?)
Thanks for mit-denken
rafael
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---