+
From: michaelP <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:49:33 +0100
on 8/10/03 7:33 pm, Anthony Crifasi at crifasi@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> The last GA text I remember us specifically discussing was GA 29 back around
> May or April, from which you tried to argue that the ontological distinction
> is "ambiguous," to which I replied that in that very text Heidegger says
> that the o/o distinction is ambiguous precisely BECAUSE these are not two
> distinct ontic "things", which therefore reinforces that very distinction in
> the first place.
Again, interrupting, sorry, but: the difference is not some thing, it [is]
being; one cannot talk *about* the difference because that is to make it
another being amongst others; but one can display it in the very language;
but THAT necessarily appears as ambiguous (due to the normal expectation
that talking must necessarily be determined from what one is talking about,
that th focus and authoritative centre of speech be the topic. But the
difference can never be a topic.
regards
mP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---