I forgot to mention (in my previous post to Jan) that those reasons I
adduced concerning the meaning of the J-clauses ("X exists in the way/as X
exists" and the like), that they stretch language to a breaking point in
order the render the thatness, the suchness of X without totally leaving the
linguistic medium, mean for me that such clauses are indeed utterly
philosophical because they bring us the question of be-ing and beings
(however differently they might be termed by those purveyors of J-clauses);
they are like bejewelled pebbles on a sandy beach that beckon us to pick
something up... almost silently (without mentioning or even whispering their
names).
regards
dwarfPeep
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
adduced concerning the meaning of the J-clauses ("X exists in the way/as X
exists" and the like), that they stretch language to a breaking point in
order the render the thatness, the suchness of X without totally leaving the
linguistic medium, mean for me that such clauses are indeed utterly
philosophical because they bring us the question of be-ing and beings
(however differently they might be termed by those purveyors of J-clauses);
they are like bejewelled pebbles on a sandy beach that beckon us to pick
something up... almost silently (without mentioning or even whispering their
names).
regards
dwarfPeep
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---