I think that my understanding of Dasein as:
Not having Being -- is perhaps a sloppy way of saying that Being conceals
itself
from Dasein in a way that it does not conceal itself from
things. It is,
in fact, this concealing which gives Dasein its relationship
with Being.
having a relationship with Being -- is the only way I have left to speak of
it.
Speaking of Dasein as Being is to concrete for what I want
to say.
Dasein doesn't bask in the light of what he is, Dasein basks
in the
light of Being. The is a sense in Heidegger (I assure you)
in which
we are IN Being. Perhaps it is a sense more developed in
his later
works though.
For the most part your criticisms are right; but I'm just racking it up as
sloppiness.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
Not having Being -- is perhaps a sloppy way of saying that Being conceals
itself
from Dasein in a way that it does not conceal itself from
things. It is,
in fact, this concealing which gives Dasein its relationship
with Being.
having a relationship with Being -- is the only way I have left to speak of
it.
Speaking of Dasein as Being is to concrete for what I want
to say.
Dasein doesn't bask in the light of what he is, Dasein basks
in the
light of Being. The is a sense in Heidegger (I assure you)
in which
we are IN Being. Perhaps it is a sense more developed in
his later
works though.
For the most part your criticisms are right; but I'm just racking it up as
sloppiness.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------