mistranslations

I remember, folks, back in those distant times of 2002 I suggested that 
beings like Matter and God were the barely thinkable
limits/bounds/conditions of/for thinking itself; better they are the
horizons of thinking, neither to be believed in nor not to be believed in.
Now when we come to being (or it comes to us), [it] being not a being
(however inclusive or however profound the foundationality), being comes
across (or withdraws) as the utterly unthinkable horizon of all horizons,
without which thinking is impossible and impassable. Even less is being to
be believed in or not believed in; it is the very possibility of belief and
non-belief; the difference between belief and non-belief; difference...

Being can thus neither be disputed nor asserted, nevermind proved or
disproved, and all speech about it is bathetic chatter even when such speech
makes reference to the horizonality it confers. Being comes across in
meta-phor, in (mis)trans-lation, in inter-pretation... in the (be)tweens,
the crossings, the abouts: one does not have to speak of it at all since the
very every possibility of speech and language makes silent reference to its
silent heart.

What thinkest thou?

new laid regards

michaelP


     --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---