tymp knocked this out recently in conversation with rene (sorry to interrupt
but...):
> metaphysics understood as a transcendental
> absolute as an ontological cut between some alleged beyng and beings.
tymp, (in my reading of heidegger) the difference between be-ing (of a
being) and that being (not "some alleged beying and beings") 'is' not a
"transcendental absolute", 'is' not transcendental at all but utterly
immanent already. There 'is' no "beying" set over against (stepping
across/over)"beings"; the relation between be-ing and beings is a complex
interweaving whereby the very lighting up of beings necessitates the eclipse
of be-ing (of such beings): be-ing withdraws as beings come to presence.
regards
michaelPeep
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
but...):
> metaphysics understood as a transcendental
> absolute as an ontological cut between some alleged beyng and beings.
tymp, (in my reading of heidegger) the difference between be-ing (of a
being) and that being (not "some alleged beying and beings") 'is' not a
"transcendental absolute", 'is' not transcendental at all but utterly
immanent already. There 'is' no "beying" set over against (stepping
across/over)"beings"; the relation between be-ing and beings is a complex
interweaving whereby the very lighting up of beings necessitates the eclipse
of be-ing (of such beings): be-ing withdraws as beings come to presence.
regards
michaelPeep
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---