> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--B_3087971679_249688
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Lionel,=20
Ontic and ontological both derive from the same Greek root (to on, the
being), but they stand for two different concepts.
Ontological (the logos of to on) is in the widest sense the philosophy of
Being, as being as such. You can date ontological reflections back to
Parmenides, who is the first to talk about an eternal and unchanging Being.
For Plato, the whole reality is a structure of beings, all things defined b=
y
the extent to which the partake in Being. Ever since Aristotle ontology is
often conflated with metaphysics. The development of philosophies of
conscience (Descartes, Kant) basically obliterates ontology until the
development of phenomenology. For Husserl, an ontology of the Lebenswelt
(living world or living environment, I don=B9t know the standard English
translation) is the search for invariance using the phenomenological tools
(i.e. constituting the world through the transcendental ego, by means of
eidetic variation. In other words, you derive the world from your
conscience.) Now we get to Heidegger, who develops a different conception o=
f
ontology. For once, Heidegger=B9s primary question is the meaning of being.
The being who asks this question (i.e. man) is defined as Dasein. Now
Heidegger=B9s ontology is a fundamental ontology, that its to say it is an
ontology of human Dasein.
Heidegger differentiates between the traditional conceptions of ontological
and ontic:=20
1. Ontic is an adjective that refers to =B3real=B2 being, as opposed to
traditional ontology, which attempts to distill essences or structures from
Being (Being of being). You could say that ontic behaviour is behaviour
towards being (or with being) that is concrete and that does not require an=
y
conceptual, thematic, ontological preconception about being on behalf of th=
e
individual Dasein.=20
2. Ontological, as we said above, is an adjective that refers to the genera=
l
structure of being.
Instead, Heidegger defines ontic as ontisch-existenziell (ask Stuart for
the English transl.) Now, o.-e. refers not to being as such, but to Dasein,
and more specifically, the structure of Dasein as being-in-the-world
(in-der-Welt-sein) prior to its conceptual treatment.
This =B3prior to=B2 (vor-) is important, as Heidegger defines ontology as
Existenzial-Ontologie (also referred to as fundamental ontology. sorry that
I can=B9t translate this, but I don=B9t know the English differentiation betwee=
n
existenziell and existenzial). So the E.-Ontology is directed towards
Dasein and it problematises the ontic on the ontological level. That is the
key point. The ontological analysis presupposes the ontic level, but it
explicitly analysis the moments of ontic existence. This is where the
moments of ontic existence acquire (or are attributed, if you will) a
meaning.=20
So, if I still have to spell it out, ontic is not a piece of a larger
ontology. It is pure existence and does not need to be expanded or combined=
,
but explained. I hope that helps. If you have trouble with Heidegger, get
yourself one of these stupid but helpful introductory books on Heidegger.
Yves
On 06/11/01 21:32, "Lionel Boxer" wrote:
> I agree with Jivko
>=20
> First a question:
> The word ontic - is that like a piece of a larger ontology; for it to be
> ontological, it needs to be combined with out enonces or expaned into an
> oeuvre?
>=20
> There is likely something useful in l'enonce.
>=20
> I get the feeling that enonce is an important concept or tool in the
> designation of a collection of texts to a proper name. Perhaps a 'formul=
a'
> that enables a oeuvre to be realised or articulated.
>=20
> So from observing a discourse, it is possible to see patterns that can be
> connected by an enonce to form some sort of component element that is bui=
lt
> into the whole oeuvre. I get the impression that the idea of oeuvre is t=
o
> develop some sort of unity.
>=20
> Lionel
>=20
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.as=
p
>=20
--B_3087971679_249688
Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>to on (being)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE=3D"Geneva">Lionel, <BR>
<BR>
Ontic and ontological both derive from the same Greek root (<I>to on</I>, t=
he being), but they stand for two different concepts. <BR>
<BR>
Ontological (the <I>logos </I>of <I>to on</I>) is in the widest sense the p=
hilosophy of Being, as being as such. You can date ontological reflections b=
ack to Parmenides, who is the first to talk about an eternal and unchanging =
Being. For Plato, the whole reality is a structure of beings, all things def=
ined by the extent to which the partake in Being. Ever since Aristotle ontol=
ogy is often conflated with metaphysics. The development of philosophies of =
conscience (Descartes, Kant) basically obliterates ontology until the develo=
pment of phenomenology. For Husserl, an ontology of the <I>Lebenswelt</I> (l=
iving world or living environment, I don’t know the standard English t=
ranslation) is the search for invariance using the phenomenological tools (i=
.e. constituting the world through the transcendental ego, by means of eidet=
ic variation. In other words, you derive the world from your conscience.) No=
w we get to Heidegger, who develops a different conception of ontology. For =
once, Heidegger’s primary question is the meaning of being. The being =
who asks this question (i.e. man) is defined as <I>Dasein</I>. Now Heidegger=
’s ontology is a fundamental ontology, that its to say it is an ontolo=
gy of human Dasein. <BR>
<BR>
Heidegger differentiates between the traditional conceptions of ontological=
and ontic: <BR>
<BR>
1. Ontic is an adjective that refers to “real” being, as oppose=
d to traditional ontology, which attempts to distill essences or structures =
from Being (Being of being). You could say that ontic behaviour is behaviour=
towards being (or with being) that is concrete and that does not require an=
y conceptual, thematic, ontological preconception about being on behalf of t=
he individual Dasein. <BR>
<BR>
2. Ontological, as we said above, is an adjective that refers to the genera=
l structure of being.<BR>
<BR>
Instead, Heidegger defines ontic as <I>ontisch-existenziell </I>(ask =
Stuart for the English transl.) Now, o.-e. refers not to being as such, but =
to Dasein, and more specifically, the structure of Dasein as being-in-the-wo=
rld (<I>in-der-Welt-sein</I>) prior to its conceptual treatment. <BR>
<BR>
This “prior to” (<I>vor-</I>) is important, as Heidegger define=
s ontology as <I>Existenzial-Ontologie</I> (also referred to as fundamental =
ontology. sorry that I can’t translate this, but I don’t know th=
e English differentiation between <I>existenziell </I> and <I>existenzial</I=
>). So the E.-Ontology is directed towards Dasein and it <B>problematises th=
e ontic on the ontological level</B>. That is the key point. The ontological=
analysis presupposes the ontic level, but it explicitly analysis the moment=
s of ontic existence. This is where the moments of ontic existence acquire (=
or are attributed, if you will) a meaning. <BR>
<BR>
So, if I still have to spell it out, ontic is not a piece of a larger ontol=
ogy. It is pure existence and does not need to be expanded or combined, but =
explained. I hope that helps. If you have trouble with Heidegger, get yourse=
lf one of these stupid but helpful introductory books on Heidegger. <BR>
<BR>
Yves<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 06/11/01 21:32, "Lionel Boxer" wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#000098">> I agree with Jivko<BR>
> <BR>
> First a question:<BR>
> The word ontic - is that like a piece of a larger ontology; for it to =
be <BR>
> ontological, it needs to be combined with out enonces or expaned into =
an <BR>
> oeuvre?<BR>
> <BR>
> There is likely something useful in l'enonce.<BR>
> <BR>
> I get the feeling that enonce is an important concept or tool in the <=
BR>
> designation of a collection of texts to a proper name. Perhaps a=
'formula' <BR>
> that enables a oeuvre to be realised or articulated.<BR>
> <BR>
> So from observing a discourse, it is possible to see patterns that can=
be <BR>
> connected by an enonce to form some sort of component element that is =
built <BR>
> into the whole oeuvre. I get the impression that the idea of oeu=
vre is to <BR>
> develop some sort of unity.<BR>
> <BR>
> Lionel<BR>
> <BR>
> _________________________________________________________________<BR>
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl=
.asp<BR>
> <BR>
</FONT></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--B_3087971679_249688--
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--B_3087971679_249688
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Lionel,=20
Ontic and ontological both derive from the same Greek root (to on, the
being), but they stand for two different concepts.
Ontological (the logos of to on) is in the widest sense the philosophy of
Being, as being as such. You can date ontological reflections back to
Parmenides, who is the first to talk about an eternal and unchanging Being.
For Plato, the whole reality is a structure of beings, all things defined b=
y
the extent to which the partake in Being. Ever since Aristotle ontology is
often conflated with metaphysics. The development of philosophies of
conscience (Descartes, Kant) basically obliterates ontology until the
development of phenomenology. For Husserl, an ontology of the Lebenswelt
(living world or living environment, I don=B9t know the standard English
translation) is the search for invariance using the phenomenological tools
(i.e. constituting the world through the transcendental ego, by means of
eidetic variation. In other words, you derive the world from your
conscience.) Now we get to Heidegger, who develops a different conception o=
f
ontology. For once, Heidegger=B9s primary question is the meaning of being.
The being who asks this question (i.e. man) is defined as Dasein. Now
Heidegger=B9s ontology is a fundamental ontology, that its to say it is an
ontology of human Dasein.
Heidegger differentiates between the traditional conceptions of ontological
and ontic:=20
1. Ontic is an adjective that refers to =B3real=B2 being, as opposed to
traditional ontology, which attempts to distill essences or structures from
Being (Being of being). You could say that ontic behaviour is behaviour
towards being (or with being) that is concrete and that does not require an=
y
conceptual, thematic, ontological preconception about being on behalf of th=
e
individual Dasein.=20
2. Ontological, as we said above, is an adjective that refers to the genera=
l
structure of being.
Instead, Heidegger defines ontic as ontisch-existenziell (ask Stuart for
the English transl.) Now, o.-e. refers not to being as such, but to Dasein,
and more specifically, the structure of Dasein as being-in-the-world
(in-der-Welt-sein) prior to its conceptual treatment.
This =B3prior to=B2 (vor-) is important, as Heidegger defines ontology as
Existenzial-Ontologie (also referred to as fundamental ontology. sorry that
I can=B9t translate this, but I don=B9t know the English differentiation betwee=
n
existenziell and existenzial). So the E.-Ontology is directed towards
Dasein and it problematises the ontic on the ontological level. That is the
key point. The ontological analysis presupposes the ontic level, but it
explicitly analysis the moments of ontic existence. This is where the
moments of ontic existence acquire (or are attributed, if you will) a
meaning.=20
So, if I still have to spell it out, ontic is not a piece of a larger
ontology. It is pure existence and does not need to be expanded or combined=
,
but explained. I hope that helps. If you have trouble with Heidegger, get
yourself one of these stupid but helpful introductory books on Heidegger.
Yves
On 06/11/01 21:32, "Lionel Boxer" wrote:
> I agree with Jivko
>=20
> First a question:
> The word ontic - is that like a piece of a larger ontology; for it to be
> ontological, it needs to be combined with out enonces or expaned into an
> oeuvre?
>=20
> There is likely something useful in l'enonce.
>=20
> I get the feeling that enonce is an important concept or tool in the
> designation of a collection of texts to a proper name. Perhaps a 'formul=
a'
> that enables a oeuvre to be realised or articulated.
>=20
> So from observing a discourse, it is possible to see patterns that can be
> connected by an enonce to form some sort of component element that is bui=
lt
> into the whole oeuvre. I get the impression that the idea of oeuvre is t=
o
> develop some sort of unity.
>=20
> Lionel
>=20
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.as=
p
>=20
--B_3087971679_249688
Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>to on (being)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE=3D"Geneva">Lionel, <BR>
<BR>
Ontic and ontological both derive from the same Greek root (<I>to on</I>, t=
he being), but they stand for two different concepts. <BR>
<BR>
Ontological (the <I>logos </I>of <I>to on</I>) is in the widest sense the p=
hilosophy of Being, as being as such. You can date ontological reflections b=
ack to Parmenides, who is the first to talk about an eternal and unchanging =
Being. For Plato, the whole reality is a structure of beings, all things def=
ined by the extent to which the partake in Being. Ever since Aristotle ontol=
ogy is often conflated with metaphysics. The development of philosophies of =
conscience (Descartes, Kant) basically obliterates ontology until the develo=
pment of phenomenology. For Husserl, an ontology of the <I>Lebenswelt</I> (l=
iving world or living environment, I don’t know the standard English t=
ranslation) is the search for invariance using the phenomenological tools (i=
.e. constituting the world through the transcendental ego, by means of eidet=
ic variation. In other words, you derive the world from your conscience.) No=
w we get to Heidegger, who develops a different conception of ontology. For =
once, Heidegger’s primary question is the meaning of being. The being =
who asks this question (i.e. man) is defined as <I>Dasein</I>. Now Heidegger=
’s ontology is a fundamental ontology, that its to say it is an ontolo=
gy of human Dasein. <BR>
<BR>
Heidegger differentiates between the traditional conceptions of ontological=
and ontic: <BR>
<BR>
1. Ontic is an adjective that refers to “real” being, as oppose=
d to traditional ontology, which attempts to distill essences or structures =
from Being (Being of being). You could say that ontic behaviour is behaviour=
towards being (or with being) that is concrete and that does not require an=
y conceptual, thematic, ontological preconception about being on behalf of t=
he individual Dasein. <BR>
<BR>
2. Ontological, as we said above, is an adjective that refers to the genera=
l structure of being.<BR>
<BR>
Instead, Heidegger defines ontic as <I>ontisch-existenziell </I>(ask =
Stuart for the English transl.) Now, o.-e. refers not to being as such, but =
to Dasein, and more specifically, the structure of Dasein as being-in-the-wo=
rld (<I>in-der-Welt-sein</I>) prior to its conceptual treatment. <BR>
<BR>
This “prior to” (<I>vor-</I>) is important, as Heidegger define=
s ontology as <I>Existenzial-Ontologie</I> (also referred to as fundamental =
ontology. sorry that I can’t translate this, but I don’t know th=
e English differentiation between <I>existenziell </I> and <I>existenzial</I=
>). So the E.-Ontology is directed towards Dasein and it <B>problematises th=
e ontic on the ontological level</B>. That is the key point. The ontological=
analysis presupposes the ontic level, but it explicitly analysis the moment=
s of ontic existence. This is where the moments of ontic existence acquire (=
or are attributed, if you will) a meaning. <BR>
<BR>
So, if I still have to spell it out, ontic is not a piece of a larger ontol=
ogy. It is pure existence and does not need to be expanded or combined, but =
explained. I hope that helps. If you have trouble with Heidegger, get yourse=
lf one of these stupid but helpful introductory books on Heidegger. <BR>
<BR>
Yves<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 06/11/01 21:32, "Lionel Boxer" wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#000098">> I agree with Jivko<BR>
> <BR>
> First a question:<BR>
> The word ontic - is that like a piece of a larger ontology; for it to =
be <BR>
> ontological, it needs to be combined with out enonces or expaned into =
an <BR>
> oeuvre?<BR>
> <BR>
> There is likely something useful in l'enonce.<BR>
> <BR>
> I get the feeling that enonce is an important concept or tool in the <=
BR>
> designation of a collection of texts to a proper name. Perhaps a=
'formula' <BR>
> that enables a oeuvre to be realised or articulated.<BR>
> <BR>
> So from observing a discourse, it is possible to see patterns that can=
be <BR>
> connected by an enonce to form some sort of component element that is =
built <BR>
> into the whole oeuvre. I get the impression that the idea of oeu=
vre is to <BR>
> develop some sort of unity.<BR>
> <BR>
> Lionel<BR>
> <BR>
> _________________________________________________________________<BR>
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl=
.asp<BR>
> <BR>
</FONT></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--B_3087971679_249688--