Comments on: Lament.

By: Dave Cole

Dave Cole — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:25:11 +0000

Ashok,

Interesting post; I’m writing a reply over at my place.

xD.

By: enowning

enowning — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:21:08 +0000

Properly, it is “openness to Beyng”.

E.g. see:
http://www.eterazonline.com/2008/03/heidegger-through-ecstatic-temporality.html

By: Joshua Rocks

Joshua Rocks — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:51:36 +0000

OK, I was really just trying, emphasis on the “trying,” to be cute.

Oh well, no rest for the wicked eh?

By: ashok

ashok — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:02:53 +0000

@ Josh – Literally, I’m incorrect. Thomas Sheehan writes here:

“I follow Heidegger’s insistence that the Da of Dasein does not refer to a “there”, as well as his suggestions that Dasein not be translated as “being-here” or “being-there.” Rather, in keeping with Heidegger’s frequently repeated indications, I interpret

* Da as “the open” (namely, for all forms of being or “is”)
* Da-sein as “openness” (i.e., “being-the-open,” “being-open,” or “the open-that-we-are”).”

So yeah. If I were more literal, I’d link the “open” and “being” more tightly.

By: Joshua Rocks

Joshua Rocks — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:19:32 +0000

I hate to burst the bubble here, but, as I am sure you know by now, there can be no “openness to being.” There, I said it! Now let it stew around for a while and ferment.