On 2004/07/07, at 0:11, Phil Enns wrote: > However, as we reflect on > ourselves, on our relations to other people, and our relations to the > world, it no longer is possible to talk in terms of correctness and yet > it is precisely at these times that truth matters the most. A river > can > be described according to volume of water and flow rate, but more > importantly it can be described according to its beauty and how it > nurtures human community. People can be described according to their > roles and occupations, but more importantly they can be described > according to their character and being a self in the world. This truth > shows itself when we look past what is merely for the moment, to what > is > enduring and what makes possible that which is momentary and useful. Phil, Let me join Judy in thanking you for a lovely answer, indeed. It is one of those rare moments on the Net, when chatter pauses and a quiet, serious thought appears, making the daily task of sifting through the dross seem worth it once again. Would it be correct to say that Heidegger affirms the possibility of an unmediated apprehension of Being, once the confusion induced by purpose-filled desire is stilled? Is there, in other words, something here which both adheres to Plato's vision of finding something Real, once dialectic has done its job of removing the muddle that blocks our vision, and resembles the Japanese Buddhist image of the soul as a mirror that reflects Truth once the dust has been wiped from its surface? Or are there subtle differences that I am missing here? John John L. McCreery The Word Works, Ltd. 55-13-202 Miyagaya, Nishi-ku Yokohama, Japan 220-0006 Tel 81-45-314-9324 Email mccreery@xxxxxxx "Making Symbols is Our Business" ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html