Cologne 24-Oct-2008

Bernx@... schrieb Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:47:56 EDT:

> In a message dated 10/23/2008 4:56:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> artefact@... writes:
>
> Cologne 23-Oct-2008
>
> Time to reread Aristotle on that mode of being he calls
> _kata symbebaekos_ of which, he says, there is no
> _epistaemae_ (hence being _kata symbebaekos_ is antithetical
> to the implicit Greek understanding of being:
> well-de-fined, standing presence). The ontology of _kata
> symbebaekos_ is a knowing of not-knowing. There is no
> knowing what simply comes along (_symbainein_) in the
> interplay, no matter whether the players play badly or well.
>
> Of course not, Michael. The notion of being as "well-de-fined,
> standing presence" begins with No. One and simply reminds that, from a
> superficial standpoint had no concept of Zero. But the zero is implied
> in Aristotle's prima materia and which is empty. If it were not empty
> he would not have qualified it as potentia. Potentia, Like
> Anaximander's apieron is the antithesis to "well-de-fined, standing
> presence." The question here for us is whether Being is nihil or
> "something" as No.One. Is it (unknown) potentia or something (No.One)
> out their in the world (dasein). If you can read in Greek and
> understand Heidegger how can you miss this point.I choose not to do
> use either and prefer intuitive insight the better not to miss the
> trees for the forest.Bernard

ME: Perhaps one day you will learn to spell _apeiron_? Anaximander's
'limitless' or 'in-finite' is the principle (or 'whence' or source)
whence any being can emerge, i.e. come to stand in presence in its
well-defined sight. The "antithesis to well-de-fined, standing presence"
belongs together with its opposite: _ousia_ as _eidos_, as _morphae_.
Likewise, _dynamis_ (potentia) is always a readiness to be set to work,
i.e. to _energeia_. which finally attains and 'has' (_echein_) its end
(_telos_), its _entelecheia_. All three are modes of presencing, and
these three modes belong together.

All you are doing is one-sidedly focusing on one pole of opposites. The
one pole is always co-defined by its opposite. Your "intuitive insight"
(_noein_) therefore misses the whole.

I disagree that "The question here for us is whether Being is nihil or
"something" as No.One." Rather, the question is the MEANING of being,
especially for the Greeks, because this implicit understanding of being
has tacitly unfolded and prevailed throughout all of Western history, to
the present day. Only when we uncover through thinking this implicit
meaning of being does it become possible to understand, in turn, what
"nihil" (_kenon_) or "something" (_ti_) mean.

That's why it is profitable to return to re-view that mode of being
Aristotle calls _kata symbebaekos_ (presencing according to what comes
along with, the opposite of being _kath' hauto_, i.e. presencing
according to itself, of itself). The superlative being _kath' hauto_ for
the Greeks is _aei on_, _on akinaeton_, _on chooriston_, i.e. being that
is everlasting, unmoving and standing for itself. This mode of
presencing is the antithesis of being _kata symbebaekos_, i.e.
presencing at haphazard (L. contingere, touch-together, happen, befall).
What just comes along (_symbainein_) touches together with whatever else
is present; it befalls as an incident. There is no fore-sight that can
see this befalling; it is unpre-dictable and therefore anathema for
knowing, beyond knowing's fore-seeing grasp.

In particular, presencing according what simply comes along is also
outside the ambit of those modes of being Aristotle terms _dynamei_ and
_energeiai_. Why? Because a _dynamis_ (potentia) is a power to bring to
presence, and not merely a formal possibility. A power is set to work
(_energeiai_) in bringing to presence and therefore governs this
presencing. With being _kata symbebaekos_ there is no such government.
What simply comes along is ungovernable, spontaneous movement
(_kinaesis_). Such spontaneity (f. L. 'sponte' of one’s own accord,
freely) is the core also of human freedom. Metaphysical thinking has
always tried to make this spontaneity governable, e.g. Hegel and
Heidegger, both of whom regard freedom as acting according to insight
into a necessity, the opposite of caprice (Willkuer). But where there is
a plurality of spontaneous sources, i.e. where freedom meets freedom,
there can be no reduction (leading-back) to a unified necessity; instead
there arises interplay, with uncertain ongoing outcomes.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
http://www.arte-fact.org _-_-_-_-_-_-_ artefact@... _-_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred (c)_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_