Litok,
Perhaps you could point out what parts of my "communication" are most
begging for decipherment? I grant I'm speaking somewhat in telegraphese,
throwing in a number of references that I'm not bothering to explain. But
then, Nicholas, to whom I was replying, is a fast ball hitter, so I thought
I would throw him a knuckle ball!
As to what I take to be the Heideggerian Lie, I don't at all necessarily
hold it against him. Philosophers never lie innocently, in other words. As a
lie, it is itself beyond good and evil! The "lie" here I take to be _not_
that being is not fundamentally contingent, but rather the assertion of the
logical (and tautological) self-contingency of being as reforming the
incontingent as such, as ontology, and thus as ground for all his further
assertions. An Indian rope trick, in other words. To say that Heidegger is
lying here is to say that his sleight-of-hand is not innocent here, that he
is being quite purposively deceptive. Now, I don't happen to object to the
Heideggerian Lie here at all! It is the mask behind which he hides. Every
philosopher wears his mask.
I understand that this may all be perfect blather, and next day _I_ may
consider it as so, but today, anyway, it is the thought that occurs to me.
Best,
Tom Fool
--- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---