<<
Litok, >>
Tom,
I have to apologize for my hasty mail. It has not been your ever interesting,
noteworthy views you mailed which perplexed me, but this sign in your mail ->
_, which appears on my screen sometimes before or after one of your mailed
words; I thought it some new Heideggerianism, and reading your answer I
realized that you don't understand my silly problem (there is no real
problem, I have to admit) for reading it again just now I come to the
conclusion that you only mark words with this ->_ sign you think to be
important, to underline them. Nevertheless thank you for your quick reply,
I'm myself going to start to pond upon your interesting point of view.
-Litok
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: callihan@callihan.seanet.com (Steven E. Callihan)
Sender: owner-nietzsche@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Reply-to: nietzsche@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
To: nietzsche@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Date: 97-08-09 22:04:59 EDT
>Steve,
>
>please, honestly: Are you kidding me with this_ _ _?? If not I beg for an
>explanation for this kind of communication, I'm begging for your
>decipherment.
>With Heidegger's codings I'm somewhat acquainted, with his Sein and Seyn and
>his crossing Sein and Seyn (well, sometimes he was perplexed with it by
>himself). But I have never seen anything like this_ before; oh, is it a new
>invented useful tool, is it??? Can anyone offer help? Oh thank you so very
>much!
>
>Yours sincerely,
>
>-Litok
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 ---
--- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---