Jason B Collier wrote:
>It would appear that a 'thing' and phenomena are not the same thing. The
>reason for this is, the ontological stance one takes in relation to the
>thing/phenomena.
Maybe you can explain the distinction more clearly. It is difficult for me
to see how there can be things that are not phenomenal (that is, capable of
appearing, presenting themselves, in some form or fashion). You write
further in your reply:
>Today we see a river as a
>thing, but once we have built a dam to utilize the power/potentiality of
>the river, it becomes phenomena, something with meaning.
The point of reversing the question was to ponder the quandary. For
instance, that the potential of a river (like any other thing) is only
partially manifest at any one time would seem to point to the notion that
the river as a whole is primarily unmanifest. However, potentials, it seems
to me, are actualizable at some point and to some degree by definition. I'm
perfectly willing to admit that our phenomenal experience is partial and
fleeting, at best. A thing, however, which could never be experienced, e.g.,
never appear in any kind of phenomenal form, would seem to me to be no thing
at all.
What about the "whole" of a thing, however? Wholes, it seems to me, are
inherently unknowable. The missing part is always simply the whole, in other
words. We infer from the parts to the whole, however, and need not all the
parts to do so. Still, a thing may be a whole, but are wholes things?
Wholes, it seems to me, are infinitudes.
>However, the
>act of creation, of Poeisis, no longer has nay meaning. Our relation to
>what we create has become an act to create standing-reserve instead of
>art.
I'm not sure that art is expressive of the whole as much as it is, at its
best, a whole expression, an undivided act, if you will. The act of a human
occupying a particular station point, a perspectivity. Still, the artist
deals in totalities, creating whole products, not just bits and pieces. We
see in that product, ourselves, and if we are artists, our own self-production.
Steve Callihan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>It would appear that a 'thing' and phenomena are not the same thing. The
>reason for this is, the ontological stance one takes in relation to the
>thing/phenomena.
Maybe you can explain the distinction more clearly. It is difficult for me
to see how there can be things that are not phenomenal (that is, capable of
appearing, presenting themselves, in some form or fashion). You write
further in your reply:
>Today we see a river as a
>thing, but once we have built a dam to utilize the power/potentiality of
>the river, it becomes phenomena, something with meaning.
The point of reversing the question was to ponder the quandary. For
instance, that the potential of a river (like any other thing) is only
partially manifest at any one time would seem to point to the notion that
the river as a whole is primarily unmanifest. However, potentials, it seems
to me, are actualizable at some point and to some degree by definition. I'm
perfectly willing to admit that our phenomenal experience is partial and
fleeting, at best. A thing, however, which could never be experienced, e.g.,
never appear in any kind of phenomenal form, would seem to me to be no thing
at all.
What about the "whole" of a thing, however? Wholes, it seems to me, are
inherently unknowable. The missing part is always simply the whole, in other
words. We infer from the parts to the whole, however, and need not all the
parts to do so. Still, a thing may be a whole, but are wholes things?
Wholes, it seems to me, are infinitudes.
>However, the
>act of creation, of Poeisis, no longer has nay meaning. Our relation to
>what we create has become an act to create standing-reserve instead of
>art.
I'm not sure that art is expressive of the whole as much as it is, at its
best, a whole expression, an undivided act, if you will. The act of a human
occupying a particular station point, a perspectivity. Still, the artist
deals in totalities, creating whole products, not just bits and pieces. We
see in that product, ourselves, and if we are artists, our own self-production.
Steve Callihan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---