Jud (quickie while I am online) speaking of Heidegger to Calypso...
> he questions" the "question of "Being" on the [unexamined]
> assumption or accepted premise that THERE IS a "Being"
No, Jud, not _a_ being: be-ing; and no: be-ing _is not_ (that a being may
be). Thus the question of be-ing is that of thinking something that itself
is not (because within the frame of thinking that only beings exist or are
real or are actual or just are {i.e., all metaphysics which does just this
whatever it calls itself}, be-ing is nothing because no thing) but not
nothing (because it is _only_ nothing for all brands of metaphysics, whether
materialistic, idealistic, transcendental, immanental, positivistic,
phenomenological, existential, etc, which regard only beings as existing,
etc). Heidegger's exceedingly difficult philosophical project is in a series
of attempts at 'spinning' his way through and out of the whole of
metaphysics (which includes ALL thinking hitherto from Plato and Aristotle
onwards to now) without, without rejecting or ignoring or denying it; rather
coming through behind it, alongwith it and slightly out of it in the
infamous step-back in recollective thinking (see 'The End of Philosophy').
In this, Heidegger sees the WHOLE of metaphysics including his own as a
series of epochs of errance (differing and deferring versions of the
oblivion of be-ing in favour of beings {normally some form of beingness, a
commonality or generality or abstraction of beings}, this being [sic]
equivalent to a filling in (obliterating) of the (wholly uncomfortable)
difference between be-ing and beings with some extra special being (say, the
human being -- the animale rationale, or cogito, etc -- , or matter, or the
godhead, or society, or natural [sic] nature {see Rousseau and perhaps also
Marx}, etc. Be-ing, if you like, is the pea sitting underneath the princess'
1000 mattresses that, hidden, she still feels stops her from her beauty
sleep: how to uncover the pea.
regards
michaelPea
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> he questions" the "question of "Being" on the [unexamined]
> assumption or accepted premise that THERE IS a "Being"
No, Jud, not _a_ being: be-ing; and no: be-ing _is not_ (that a being may
be). Thus the question of be-ing is that of thinking something that itself
is not (because within the frame of thinking that only beings exist or are
real or are actual or just are {i.e., all metaphysics which does just this
whatever it calls itself}, be-ing is nothing because no thing) but not
nothing (because it is _only_ nothing for all brands of metaphysics, whether
materialistic, idealistic, transcendental, immanental, positivistic,
phenomenological, existential, etc, which regard only beings as existing,
etc). Heidegger's exceedingly difficult philosophical project is in a series
of attempts at 'spinning' his way through and out of the whole of
metaphysics (which includes ALL thinking hitherto from Plato and Aristotle
onwards to now) without, without rejecting or ignoring or denying it; rather
coming through behind it, alongwith it and slightly out of it in the
infamous step-back in recollective thinking (see 'The End of Philosophy').
In this, Heidegger sees the WHOLE of metaphysics including his own as a
series of epochs of errance (differing and deferring versions of the
oblivion of be-ing in favour of beings {normally some form of beingness, a
commonality or generality or abstraction of beings}, this being [sic]
equivalent to a filling in (obliterating) of the (wholly uncomfortable)
difference between be-ing and beings with some extra special being (say, the
human being -- the animale rationale, or cogito, etc -- , or matter, or the
godhead, or society, or natural [sic] nature {see Rousseau and perhaps also
Marx}, etc. Be-ing, if you like, is the pea sitting underneath the princess'
1000 mattresses that, hidden, she still feels stops her from her beauty
sleep: how to uncover the pea.
regards
michaelPea
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---