Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Sartre] Digest Number 1205

Expand Messages
  • Marc Holman
    take me off this list ... === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 9 9:04 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      take me off this list

      --- Sartre@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      >
      > There are 4 messages in this issue.
      >
      > Topics in this digest:
      >
      > 1. Re: Re: Ontico-ontological
      > From: Tommy Beavitt
      > <tommy@...>
      > 2. Re: Ontico-ontological
      > From: "decker150" <decker150@...>
      > 3. Re: Ontico-ontological
      > From: john@...
      > 4. Re: Re: Ontico-ontological
      > From: john@...
      >
      >
      >
      ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 1
      > Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 14:39:14 +0000
      > From: Tommy Beavitt
      > <tommy@...>
      > Subject: Re: Re: Ontico-ontological
      >
      > Great post, Joe, thanks for that.
      >
      > I have to confess that I didn't really understand
      > this distinction
      > before.
      >
      > However, after reading it I felt that you hadn't
      > perhaps fully
      > explicated the distinction between ontic and
      > ontological.
      >
      > We are used, as philosophers, to the distinction
      > between ontology (the
      > study of being) and epistemology (the study of
      > knowledge).
      > Superficially, it may seem that the distinction
      > between ontic and
      > ontological follows a similar pattern. There is
      > being and there is
      > knowledge (of being).
      >
      > However, this is to miss out on the specific
      > philosophical meaning of
      > "being". Being is not the collection of objects in
      > the material world
      > as your definition of ontic (pure factual reality
      > independent of human
      > consciousness) implies. If it were, then we don't
      > need the
      > ontic/ontological distinction as the
      > ontology/epistemology dichotomy
      > already covers the issue.
      >
      > Of course, a final definition of being isn't
      > possible, has eluded
      > philosophers from time immemorial.
      >
      > Tommy
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > On 7 Mar 2004, at 01:23, decker150 wrote:
      >
      > > I will offer an explanation. I understand that
      > the creation of these
      > > terms are driven by root Greek meanings and
      > whenever you add the logos
      > > to the ontos, the meaning give way to the use of
      > 'words'. A word,
      > > spoken or written is a symbolic / representational
      > expression.
      > > Existentialism and ontology use 'words' toward an
      > exegesis of Being,
      > > towards a critical explanation of Being.
      > >
      > > I found it helpful to outline the following
      > variables.
      > >
      > > 1. A word
      > > 2. The meaning of that word
      > > 3. The thing in itself to which the word refers
      > >
      > > Words and meaning function like indicators, they
      > point to or refer to
      > > various things in themself. In structuralism,
      > there is a
      > > differentiation between the signifier and the
      > signified. The ontic is
      > > the purest factual reality that 'is-there'
      > independent of human
      > > consciousness. In the pre-reflective,
      > pre-ontological condition, I
      > > gather that we have the raw and immediate world
      > before us (in a
      > > ineffable state). However, human consciousness,
      > especially highly
      > > developed philosophical thinking is an
      > interpretive / logical process.
      > > We don't merely see the world through what
      > Heidegger called "simple
      > > viewing", rather, we see something 'as' something;
      > a door, a chair,
      > > etc. This is a meaning-driven imbuement. But
      > mainly, the ontological
      > > does not merely view raw experience in it's simple
      > ontic condition,
      > > but projects words and meaning onto the view
      > >
      > > If I point my finger at a coffee cup, the finger
      > is not the
      > > cup-itself, it merely points us toward the cup,
      > refers our attention
      > > at the cup-in-itself. Words and meaning are
      > indicators / signifiers;
      > > whereas the cup-in-itself is 'the indicated' and
      > 'the signified'.
      > > From the Greek root 'ontos', the ontic signifies
      > 'the way things are'
      > > are correlates to my 3rd item; the thing-in-itself
      > to which the words
      > > and their meaning refer.
      > >
      > > In the act of interpreting Being, we put words to
      > use at the highest
      > > level, we pursue the 'meaning' of Being.
      > Philosophy is always a
      > > reduction and substitution of the raw and
      > immediate ontical view to
      > > 'logical' representation, explanation, to
      > explication, or to rational
      > > interpretation. Some may wonder if it is possible
      > for human beings to
      > > ever have a pure state awareness of the ontic, and
      > I think this is
      > > what the Buddhist claims they are experiencing in
      > the meditative state.
      > >
      > > Hope that helps - Joe
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Leon McQuaid"
      > <leonpmcquaid@h...>
      > > wrote:
      > >> Can someone help me with the meaning of
      > 'ontico-ontological' and the
      > > basic
      > >> ontic/ontology distinction. Is it just a mater
      > of properties versus
      > >> catagories?
      > >>
      > >>
      >
      _________________________________________________________________
      > >> Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads
      > with MSn Premium. Get
      > > 2months
      > >> FREE*
      > >>
      > > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/
      > > prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/
      > > enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
      > Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 2
      > Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 23:46:12 -0000
      > From: "decker150" <decker150@...>
      > Subject: Re: Ontico-ontological
      >
      > Hi Tommy, thanks for your insights.
      >
      === message truncated ===


      __________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
      http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
    • afolabi adeniyi
      hello, i am a new student to philosophy and i need some answers to my assignment 1,five definations of philosophy by five different philosophers 2,definations
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 9 11:17 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        hello,
        i am a new student to philosophy and i need some answers to my assignment
        1,five definations of philosophy by five different philosophers
        2,definations of the following
        a,dialectic method
        b,existentialism method
        c,phenomogical method
        d,idealism method
        thank you

        :
        take me off this list

        --- Sartre@yahoogroups.com wrote:
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        >
        > There are 4 messages in this issue.
        >
        > Topics in this digest:
        >
        > 1. Re: Re: Ontico-ontological
        > From: Tommy Beavitt
        > <tommy@...>
        > 2. Re: Ontico-ontological
        > From: "decker150" <decker150@...>
        > 3. Re: Ontico-ontological
        > From: john@...
        > 4. Re: Re: Ontico-ontological
        > From: john@...
        >
        >
        >
        ________________________________________________________________________
        >
        ________________________________________________________________________
        >
        > Message: 1
        > Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 14:39:14 +0000
        > From: Tommy Beavitt
        > <tommy@...>
        > Subject: Re: Re: Ontico-ontological
        >
        > Great post, Joe, thanks for that.
        >
        > I have to confess that I didn't really understand
        > this distinction
        > before.
        >
        > However, after reading it I felt that you hadn't
        > perhaps fully
        > explicated the distinction between ontic and
        > ontological.
        >
        > We are used, as philosophers, to the distinction
        > between ontology (the
        > study of being) and epistemology (the study of
        > knowledge).
        > Superficially, it may seem that the distinction
        > between ontic and
        > ontological follows a similar pattern. There is
        > being and there is
        > knowledge (of being).
        >
        > However, this is to miss out on the specific
        > philosophical meaning of
        > "being". Being is not the collection of objects in
        > the material world
        > as your definition of ontic (pure factual reality
        > independent of human
        > consciousness) implies. If it were, then we don't
        > need the
        > ontic/ontological distinction as the
        > ontology/epistemology dichotomy
        > already covers the issue.
        >
        > Of course, a final definition of being isn't
        > possible, has eluded
        > philosophers from time immemorial.
        >
        > Tommy
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > On 7 Mar 2004, at 01:23, decker150 wrote:
        >
        > > I will offer an explanation. I understand that
        > the creation of these
        > > terms are driven by root Greek meanings and
        > whenever you add the logos
        > > to the ontos, the meaning give way to the use of
        > 'words'. A word,
        > > spoken or written is a symbolic / representational
        > expression.
        > > Existentialism and ontology use 'words' toward an
        > exegesis of Being,
        > > towards a critical explanation of Being.
        > >
        > > I found it helpful to outline the following
        > variables.
        > >
        > > 1. A word
        > > 2. The meaning of that word
        > > 3. The thing in itself to which the word refers
        > >
        > > Words and meaning function like indicators, they
        > point to or refer to
        > > various things in themself. In structuralism,
        > there is a
        > > differentiation between the signifier and the
        > signified. The ontic is
        > > the purest factual reality that 'is-there'
        > independent of human
        > > consciousness. In the pre-reflective,
        > pre-ontological condition, I
        > > gather that we have the raw and immediate world
        > before us (in a
        > > ineffable state). However, human consciousness,
        > especially highly
        > > developed philosophical thinking is an
        > interpretive / logical process.
        > > We don't merely see the world through what
        > Heidegger called "simple
        > > viewing", rather, we see something 'as' something;
        > a door, a chair,
        > > etc. This is a meaning-driven imbuement. But
        > mainly, the ontological
        > > does not merely view raw experience in it's simple
        > ontic condition,
        > > but projects words and meaning onto the view
        > >
        > > If I point my finger at a coffee cup, the finger
        > is not the
        > > cup-itself, it merely points us toward the cup,
        > refers our attention
        > > at the cup-in-itself. Words and meaning are
        > indicators / signifiers;
        > > whereas the cup-in-itself is 'the indicated' and
        > 'the signified'.
        > > From the Greek root 'ontos', the ontic signifies
        > 'the way things are'
        > > are correlates to my 3rd item; the thing-in-itself
        > to which the words
        > > and their meaning refer.
        > >
        > > In the act of interpreting Being, we put words to
        > use at the highest
        > > level, we pursue the 'meaning' of Being.
        > Philosophy is always a
        > > reduction and substitution of the raw and
        > immediate ontical view to
        > > 'logical' representation, explanation, to
        > explication, or to rational
        > > interpretation. Some may wonder if it is possible
        > for human beings to
        > > ever have a pure state awareness of the ontic, and
        > I think this is
        > > what the Buddhist claims they are experiencing in
        > the meditative state.
        > >
        > > Hope that helps - Joe
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Leon McQuaid"
        > <leonpmcquaid@h...>
        > > wrote:
        > >> Can someone help me with the meaning of
        > 'ontico-ontological' and the
        > > basic
        > >> ontic/ontology distinction. Is it just a mater
        > of properties versus
        > >> catagories?
        > >>
        > >>
        >
        _________________________________________________________________
        > >> Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads
        > with MSn Premium. Get
        > > 2months
        > >> FREE*
        > >>
        > > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/
        > > prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/
        > > enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
        > Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        ________________________________________________________________________
        >
        ________________________________________________________________________
        >
        > Message: 2
        > Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 23:46:12 -0000
        > From: "decker150" <decker150@...>
        > Subject: Re: Ontico-ontological
        >
        > Hi Tommy, thanks for your insights.
        >
        === message truncated ===


        __________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
        http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


        To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
        Click Here

        ---------------------------------
        Yahoo! Groups Links

        To visit your group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



        ---------------------------------
        Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Aaron Bremyer
        Dear Afolabi, You misunderstand the nature of this discussion list. You will have to find answers to your assignment elsewhere. Yours, Aaron
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 9 12:05 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Afolabi,

          You misunderstand the nature of this discussion list. You will have to
          find answers to your assignment elsewhere.

          Yours,
          Aaron



          On 9 Mar 2004, at 2:17 PM, afolabi adeniyi wrote:

          > hello,
          > i am a new student to philosophy and i need some answers to my
          > assignment
          > 1,five definations of philosophy by five different philosophers
          > 2,definations of the following
          > a,dialectic method
          > b,existentialism method
          > c,phenomogical method
          > d,idealism method
          > thank you
          >
          > :
          > take me off this list
          >
          > --- Sartre@yahoogroups.com wrote:
          >> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          >>
          >> There are 4 messages in this issue.
          >>
          >> Topics in this digest:
          >>
          >> 1. Re: Re: Ontico-ontological
          >> From: Tommy Beavitt
          >> <tommy@...>
          >> 2. Re: Ontico-ontological
          >> From: "decker150" <decker150@...>
          >> 3. Re: Ontico-ontological
          >> From: john@...
          >> 4. Re: Re: Ontico-ontological
          >> From: john@...
          >>
          >>
          >>
          > _______________________________________________________________________
          > _
          >>
          > _______________________________________________________________________
          > _
          >>
          >> Message: 1
          >> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 14:39:14 +0000
          >> From: Tommy Beavitt
          >> <tommy@...>
          >> Subject: Re: Re: Ontico-ontological
          >>
          >> Great post, Joe, thanks for that.
          >>
          >> I have to confess that I didn't really understand
          >> this distinction
          >> before.
          >>
          >> However, after reading it I felt that you hadn't
          >> perhaps fully
          >> explicated the distinction between ontic and
          >> ontological.
          >>
          >> We are used, as philosophers, to the distinction
          >> between ontology (the
          >> study of being) and epistemology (the study of
          >> knowledge).
          >> Superficially, it may seem that the distinction
          >> between ontic and
          >> ontological follows a similar pattern. There is
          >> being and there is
          >> knowledge (of being).
          >>
          >> However, this is to miss out on the specific
          >> philosophical meaning of
          >> "being". Being is not the collection of objects in
          >> the material world
          >> as your definition of ontic (pure factual reality
          >> independent of human
          >> consciousness) implies. If it were, then we don't
          >> need the
          >> ontic/ontological distinction as the
          >> ontology/epistemology dichotomy
          >> already covers the issue.
          >>
          >> Of course, a final definition of being isn't
          >> possible, has eluded
          >> philosophers from time immemorial.
          >>
          >> Tommy
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> On 7 Mar 2004, at 01:23, decker150 wrote:
          >>
          >>> I will offer an explanation. I understand that
          >> the creation of these
          >>> terms are driven by root Greek meanings and
          >> whenever you add the logos
          >>> to the ontos, the meaning give way to the use of
          >> 'words'. A word,
          >>> spoken or written is a symbolic / representational
          >> expression.
          >>> Existentialism and ontology use 'words' toward an
          >> exegesis of Being,
          >>> towards a critical explanation of Being.
          >>>
          >>> I found it helpful to outline the following
          >> variables.
          >>>
          >>> 1. A word
          >>> 2. The meaning of that word
          >>> 3. The thing in itself to which the word refers
          >>>
          >>> Words and meaning function like indicators, they
          >> point to or refer to
          >>> various things in themself. In structuralism,
          >> there is a
          >>> differentiation between the signifier and the
          >> signified. The ontic is
          >>> the purest factual reality that 'is-there'
          >> independent of human
          >>> consciousness. In the pre-reflective,
          >> pre-ontological condition, I
          >>> gather that we have the raw and immediate world
          >> before us (in a
          >>> ineffable state). However, human consciousness,
          >> especially highly
          >>> developed philosophical thinking is an
          >> interpretive / logical process.
          >>> We don't merely see the world through what
          >> Heidegger called "simple
          >>> viewing", rather, we see something 'as' something;
          >> a door, a chair,
          >>> etc. This is a meaning-driven imbuement. But
          >> mainly, the ontological
          >>> does not merely view raw experience in it's simple
          >> ontic condition,
          >>> but projects words and meaning onto the view
          >>>
          >>> If I point my finger at a coffee cup, the finger
          >> is not the
          >>> cup-itself, it merely points us toward the cup,
          >> refers our attention
          >>> at the cup-in-itself. Words and meaning are
          >> indicators / signifiers;
          >>> whereas the cup-in-itself is 'the indicated' and
          >> 'the signified'.
          >>> From the Greek root 'ontos', the ontic signifies
          >> 'the way things are'
          >>> are correlates to my 3rd item; the thing-in-itself
          >> to which the words
          >>> and their meaning refer.
          >>>
          >>> In the act of interpreting Being, we put words to
          >> use at the highest
          >>> level, we pursue the 'meaning' of Being.
          >> Philosophy is always a
          >>> reduction and substitution of the raw and
          >> immediate ontical view to
          >>> 'logical' representation, explanation, to
          >> explication, or to rational
          >>> interpretation. Some may wonder if it is possible
          >> for human beings to
          >>> ever have a pure state awareness of the ontic, and
          >> I think this is
          >>> what the Buddhist claims they are experiencing in
          >> the meditative state.
          >>>
          >>> Hope that helps - Joe
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>> --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Leon McQuaid"
          >> <leonpmcquaid@h...>
          >>> wrote:
          >>>> Can someone help me with the meaning of
          >> 'ontico-ontological' and the
          >>> basic
          >>>> ontic/ontology distinction. Is it just a mater
          >> of properties versus
          >>>> catagories?
          >>>>
          >>>>
          >>
          > _________________________________________________________________
          >>>> Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads
          >> with MSn Premium. Get
          >>> 2months
          >>>> FREE*
          >>>>
          >>> http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/
          >>> prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/
          >>> enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
          >> Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >>>
          >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          > _______________________________________________________________________
          > _
          >>
          > _______________________________________________________________________
          > _
          >>
          >> Message: 2
          >> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 23:46:12 -0000
          >> From: "decker150" <decker150@...>
          >> Subject: Re: Ontico-ontological
          >>
          >> Hi Tommy, thanks for your insights.
          >>
          > === message truncated ===
          >
          >
          > __________________________________
          > Do you Yahoo!?
          > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
          > http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
          >
          >
          > To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
          > Click Here
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          > To visit your group on the web, go to:
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          >
          >
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          > Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends
          > today! Download Messenger Now
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          > To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Lorna Landry
          I think you should do your own homework! afolabi adeniyi wrote: hello, i am a new student to philosophy and i need some answers to my
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 9 12:09 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            I think you should do your own homework!



            afolabi adeniyi <ade4labi@...> wrote: hello,
            i am a new student to philosophy and i need some answers to my assignment
            1,five definations of philosophy by five different philosophers
            2,definations of the following
            a,dialectic method
            b,existentialism method
            c,phenomogical method
            d,idealism method
            thank you

            :
            take me off this list

            --- Sartre@yahoogroups.com wrote:
            > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            >
            > There are 4 messages in this issue.
            >
            > Topics in this digest:
            >
            > 1. Re: Re: Ontico-ontological
            > From: Tommy Beavitt
            >
            > 2. Re: Ontico-ontological
            > From: "decker150"
            > 3. Re: Ontico-ontological
            > From: john@...
            > 4. Re: Re: Ontico-ontological
            > From: john@...
            >
            >
            >
            ________________________________________________________________________
            >
            ________________________________________________________________________
            >
            > Message: 1
            > Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 14:39:14 +0000
            > From: Tommy Beavitt
            >
            > Subject: Re: Re: Ontico-ontological
            >
            > Great post, Joe, thanks for that.
            >
            > I have to confess that I didn't really understand
            > this distinction
            > before.
            >
            > However, after reading it I felt that you hadn't
            > perhaps fully
            > explicated the distinction between ontic and
            > ontological.
            >
            > We are used, as philosophers, to the distinction
            > between ontology (the
            > study of being) and epistemology (the study of
            > knowledge).
            > Superficially, it may seem that the distinction
            > between ontic and
            > ontological follows a similar pattern. There is
            > being and there is
            > knowledge (of being).
            >
            > However, this is to miss out on the specific
            > philosophical meaning of
            > "being". Being is not the collection of objects in
            > the material world
            > as your definition of ontic (pure factual reality
            > independent of human
            > consciousness) implies. If it were, then we don't
            > need the
            > ontic/ontological distinction as the
            > ontology/epistemology dichotomy
            > already covers the issue.
            >
            > Of course, a final definition of being isn't
            > possible, has eluded
            > philosophers from time immemorial.
            >
            > Tommy
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > On 7 Mar 2004, at 01:23, decker150 wrote:
            >
            > > I will offer an explanation. I understand that
            > the creation of these
            > > terms are driven by root Greek meanings and
            > whenever you add the logos
            > > to the ontos, the meaning give way to the use of
            > 'words'. A word,
            > > spoken or written is a symbolic / representational
            > expression.
            > > Existentialism and ontology use 'words' toward an
            > exegesis of Being,
            > > towards a critical explanation of Being.
            > >
            > > I found it helpful to outline the following
            > variables.
            > >
            > > 1. A word
            > > 2. The meaning of that word
            > > 3. The thing in itself to which the word refers
            > >
            > > Words and meaning function like indicators, they
            > point to or refer to
            > > various things in themself. In structuralism,
            > there is a
            > > differentiation between the signifier and the
            > signified. The ontic is
            > > the purest factual reality that 'is-there'
            > independent of human
            > > consciousness. In the pre-reflective,
            > pre-ontological condition, I
            > > gather that we have the raw and immediate world
            > before us (in a
            > > ineffable state). However, human consciousness,
            > especially highly
            > > developed philosophical thinking is an
            > interpretive / logical process.
            > > We don't merely see the world through what
            > Heidegger called "simple
            > > viewing", rather, we see something 'as' something;
            > a door, a chair,
            > > etc. This is a meaning-driven imbuement. But
            > mainly, the ontological
            > > does not merely view raw experience in it's simple
            > ontic condition,
            > > but projects words and meaning onto the view
            > >
            > > If I point my finger at a coffee cup, the finger
            > is not the
            > > cup-itself, it merely points us toward the cup,
            > refers our attention
            > > at the cup-in-itself. Words and meaning are
            > indicators / signifiers;
            > > whereas the cup-in-itself is 'the indicated' and
            > 'the signified'.
            > > From the Greek root 'ontos', the ontic signifies
            > 'the way things are'
            > > are correlates to my 3rd item; the thing-in-itself
            > to which the words
            > > and their meaning refer.
            > >
            > > In the act of interpreting Being, we put words to
            > use at the highest
            > > level, we pursue the 'meaning' of Being.
            > Philosophy is always a
            > > reduction and substitution of the raw and
            > immediate ontical view to
            > > 'logical' representation, explanation, to
            > explication, or to rational
            > > interpretation. Some may wonder if it is possible
            > for human beings to
            > > ever have a pure state awareness of the ontic, and
            > I think this is
            > > what the Buddhist claims they are experiencing in
            > the meditative state.
            > >
            > > Hope that helps - Joe
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Leon McQuaid"
            >
            > > wrote:
            > >> Can someone help me with the meaning of
            > 'ontico-ontological' and the
            > > basic
            > >> ontic/ontology distinction. Is it just a mater
            > of properties versus
            > >> catagories?
            > >>
            > >>
            >
            _________________________________________________________________
            > >> Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads
            > with MSn Premium. Get
            > > 2months
            > >> FREE*
            > >>
            > > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/
            > > prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/
            > > enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
            > Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > >
            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            ________________________________________________________________________
            >
            ________________________________________________________________________
            >
            > Message: 2
            > Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 23:46:12 -0000
            > From: "decker150"
            > Subject: Re: Ontico-ontological
            >
            > Hi Tommy, thanks for your insights.
            >
            === message truncated ===


            __________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
            http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


            To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



            Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
            Click Here

            ---------------------------------
            Yahoo! Groups Links

            To visit your group on the web, go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



            ---------------------------------
            Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



            To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            Yahoo! Groups Links








            ---------------------------------
            Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • zebesky@aol.com
            unsubscribe me please. zebesky@aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 9 12:11 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              unsubscribe me please.

              zebesky@...


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • afolabi adeniyi
              hi, hello lorna landry got your message and thank for that piece of ad any way,i am new to this corse and really needed help,i lack good textbook for now that
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 19 10:28 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                hi,
                hello lorna landry got your message and thank for that piece of ad any way,i am new to this corse and really needed help,i lack good textbook for now that why i did that,hope we can get to talk really wanna know you,see ya around then lorna,really wanna know you
                bye

                Lorna Landry <lornalandry@...> wrote:

                I think you should do your own homework!



                afolabi adeniyi <ade4labi@...> wrote: hello,
                i am a new student to philosophy and i need some answers to my assignment
                1,five definations of philosophy by five different philosophers
                2,definations of the following
                a,dialectic method
                b,existentialism method
                c,phenomogical method
                d,idealism method
                thank you

                :
                take me off this list

                --- Sartre@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                >
                > There are 4 messages in this issue.
                >
                > Topics in this digest:
                >
                > 1. Re: Re: Ontico-ontological
                > From: Tommy Beavitt
                >
                > 2. Re: Ontico-ontological
                > From: "decker150"
                > 3. Re: Ontico-ontological
                > From: john@...
                > 4. Re: Re: Ontico-ontological
                > From: john@...
                >
                >
                >
                ________________________________________________________________________
                >
                ________________________________________________________________________
                >
                > Message: 1
                > Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 14:39:14 +0000
                > From: Tommy Beavitt
                >
                > Subject: Re: Re: Ontico-ontological
                >
                > Great post, Joe, thanks for that.
                >
                > I have to confess that I didn't really understand
                > this distinction
                > before.
                >
                > However, after reading it I felt that you hadn't
                > perhaps fully
                > explicated the distinction between ontic and
                > ontological.
                >
                > We are used, as philosophers, to the distinction
                > between ontology (the
                > study of being) and epistemology (the study of
                > knowledge).
                > Superficially, it may seem that the distinction
                > between ontic and
                > ontological follows a similar pattern. There is
                > being and there is
                > knowledge (of being).
                >
                > However, this is to miss out on the specific
                > philosophical meaning of
                > "being". Being is not the collection of objects in
                > the material world
                > as your definition of ontic (pure factual reality
                > independent of human
                > consciousness) implies. If it were, then we don't
                > need the
                > ontic/ontological distinction as the
                > ontology/epistemology dichotomy
                > already covers the issue.
                >
                > Of course, a final definition of being isn't
                > possible, has eluded
                > philosophers from time immemorial.
                >
                > Tommy
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > On 7 Mar 2004, at 01:23, decker150 wrote:
                >
                > > I will offer an explanation. I understand that
                > the creation of these
                > > terms are driven by root Greek meanings and
                > whenever you add the logos
                > > to the ontos, the meaning give way to the use of
                > 'words'. A word,
                > > spoken or written is a symbolic / representational
                > expression.
                > > Existentialism and ontology use 'words' toward an
                > exegesis of Being,
                > > towards a critical explanation of Being.
                > >
                > > I found it helpful to outline the following
                > variables.
                > >
                > > 1. A word
                > > 2. The meaning of that word
                > > 3. The thing in itself to which the word refers
                > >
                > > Words and meaning function like indicators, they
                > point to or refer to
                > > various things in themself. In structuralism,
                > there is a
                > > differentiation between the signifier and the
                > signified. The ontic is
                > > the purest factual reality that 'is-there'
                > independent of human
                > > consciousness. In the pre-reflective,
                > pre-ontological condition, I
                > > gather that we have the raw and immediate world
                > before us (in a
                > > ineffable state). However, human consciousness,
                > especially highly
                > > developed philosophical thinking is an
                > interpretive / logical process.
                > > We don't merely see the world through what
                > Heidegger called "simple
                > > viewing", rather, we see something 'as' something;
                > a door, a chair,
                > > etc. This is a meaning-driven imbuement. But
                > mainly, the ontological
                > > does not merely view raw experience in it's simple
                > ontic condition,
                > > but projects words and meaning onto the view
                > >
                > > If I point my finger at a coffee cup, the finger
                > is not the
                > > cup-itself, it merely points us toward the cup,
                > refers our attention
                > > at the cup-in-itself. Words and meaning are
                > indicators / signifiers;
                > > whereas the cup-in-itself is 'the indicated' and
                > 'the signified'.
                > > From the Greek root 'ontos', the ontic signifies
                > 'the way things are'
                > > are correlates to my 3rd item; the thing-in-itself
                > to which the words
                > > and their meaning refer.
                > >
                > > In the act of interpreting Being, we put words to
                > use at the highest
                > > level, we pursue the 'meaning' of Being.
                > Philosophy is always a
                > > reduction and substitution of the raw and
                > immediate ontical view to
                > > 'logical' representation, explanation, to
                > explication, or to rational
                > > interpretation. Some may wonder if it is possible
                > for human beings to
                > > ever have a pure state awareness of the ontic, and
                > I think this is
                > > what the Buddhist claims they are experiencing in
                > the meditative state.
                > >
                > > Hope that helps - Joe
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Leon McQuaid"
                >
                > > wrote:
                > >> Can someone help me with the meaning of
                > 'ontico-ontological' and the
                > > basic
                > >> ontic/ontology distinction. Is it just a mater
                > of properties versus
                > >> catagories?
                > >>
                > >>
                >
                _________________________________________________________________
                > >> Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads
                > with MSn Premium. Get
                > > 2months
                > >> FREE*
                > >>
                > > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/
                > > prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/
                > > enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
                > Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > >
                > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                ________________________________________________________________________
                >
                ________________________________________________________________________
                >
                > Message: 2
                > Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 23:46:12 -0000
                > From: "decker150"
                > Subject: Re: Ontico-ontological
                >
                > Hi Tommy, thanks for your insights.
                >
                === message truncated ===


                __________________________________
                Do you Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
                http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


                To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                Click Here

                ---------------------------------
                Yahoo! Groups Links

                To visit your group on the web, go to:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                ---------------------------------
                Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                Yahoo! Groups Links








                ---------------------------------
                Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                Click Here

                ---------------------------------
                Yahoo! Groups Links

                To visit your group on the web, go to:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                ---------------------------------
                Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Lorna Landry
                I did not mean to be harsh. I would love to talk about philosophy/existentialism/Sartre with you, but you must show me that you are actually reading some
                Message 7 of 8 , Mar 19 12:15 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  I did not mean to be harsh. I would love to talk about philosophy/existentialism/Sartre with you, but you must show me that you are actually reading some philosophy somewhere. You cannot expect the people on this list to pass this course for you. Why not post what YOU think the answers to your questions are, and we can all discuss them?

                  Lorna

                  afolabi adeniyi <ade4labi@...> wrote: hi,
                  hello lorna landry got your message and thank for that piece of ad any way,i am new to this corse and really needed help,i lack good textbook for now that why i did that,hope we can get to talk really wanna know you,see ya around then lorna,really wanna know you
                  bye

                  Lorna Landry wrote:

                  I think you should do your own homework!



                  afolabi adeniyi wrote: hello,
                  i am a new student to philosophy and i need some answers to my assignment
                  1,five definations of philosophy by five different philosophers
                  2,definations of the following
                  a,dialectic method
                  b,existentialism method
                  c,phenomogical method
                  d,idealism method
                  thank you

                  :
                  take me off this list

                  --- Sartre@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                  > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  >
                  > There are 4 messages in this issue.
                  >
                  > Topics in this digest:
                  >
                  > 1. Re: Re: Ontico-ontological
                  > From: Tommy Beavitt
                  >
                  > 2. Re: Ontico-ontological
                  > From: "decker150"
                  > 3. Re: Ontico-ontological
                  > From: john@...
                  > 4. Re: Re: Ontico-ontological
                  > From: john@...
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  ________________________________________________________________________
                  >
                  ________________________________________________________________________
                  >
                  > Message: 1
                  > Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 14:39:14 +0000
                  > From: Tommy Beavitt
                  >
                  > Subject: Re: Re: Ontico-ontological
                  >
                  > Great post, Joe, thanks for that.
                  >
                  > I have to confess that I didn't really understand
                  > this distinction
                  > before.
                  >
                  > However, after reading it I felt that you hadn't
                  > perhaps fully
                  > explicated the distinction between ontic and
                  > ontological.
                  >
                  > We are used, as philosophers, to the distinction
                  > between ontology (the
                  > study of being) and epistemology (the study of
                  > knowledge).
                  > Superficially, it may seem that the distinction
                  > between ontic and
                  > ontological follows a similar pattern. There is
                  > being and there is
                  > knowledge (of being).
                  >
                  > However, this is to miss out on the specific
                  > philosophical meaning of
                  > "being". Being is not the collection of objects in
                  > the material world
                  > as your definition of ontic (pure factual reality
                  > independent of human
                  > consciousness) implies. If it were, then we don't
                  > need the
                  > ontic/ontological distinction as the
                  > ontology/epistemology dichotomy
                  > already covers the issue.
                  >
                  > Of course, a final definition of being isn't
                  > possible, has eluded
                  > philosophers from time immemorial.
                  >
                  > Tommy
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > On 7 Mar 2004, at 01:23, decker150 wrote:
                  >
                  > > I will offer an explanation. I understand that
                  > the creation of these
                  > > terms are driven by root Greek meanings and
                  > whenever you add the logos
                  > > to the ontos, the meaning give way to the use of
                  > 'words'. A word,
                  > > spoken or written is a symbolic / representational
                  > expression.
                  > > Existentialism and ontology use 'words' toward an
                  > exegesis of Being,
                  > > towards a critical explanation of Being.
                  > >
                  > > I found it helpful to outline the following
                  > variables.
                  > >
                  > > 1. A word
                  > > 2. The meaning of that word
                  > > 3. The thing in itself to which the word refers
                  > >
                  > > Words and meaning function like indicators, they
                  > point to or refer to
                  > > various things in themself. In structuralism,
                  > there is a
                  > > differentiation between the signifier and the
                  > signified. The ontic is
                  > > the purest factual reality that 'is-there'
                  > independent of human
                  > > consciousness. In the pre-reflective,
                  > pre-ontological condition, I
                  > > gather that we have the raw and immediate world
                  > before us (in a
                  > > ineffable state). However, human consciousness,
                  > especially highly
                  > > developed philosophical thinking is an
                  > interpretive / logical process.
                  > > We don't merely see the world through what
                  > Heidegger called "simple
                  > > viewing", rather, we see something 'as' something;
                  > a door, a chair,
                  > > etc. This is a meaning-driven imbuement. But
                  > mainly, the ontological
                  > > does not merely view raw experience in it's simple
                  > ontic condition,
                  > > but projects words and meaning onto the view
                  > >
                  > > If I point my finger at a coffee cup, the finger
                  > is not the
                  > > cup-itself, it merely points us toward the cup,
                  > refers our attention
                  > > at the cup-in-itself. Words and meaning are
                  > indicators / signifiers;
                  > > whereas the cup-in-itself is 'the indicated' and
                  > 'the signified'.
                  > > From the Greek root 'ontos', the ontic signifies
                  > 'the way things are'
                  > > are correlates to my 3rd item; the thing-in-itself
                  > to which the words
                  > > and their meaning refer.
                  > >
                  > > In the act of interpreting Being, we put words to
                  > use at the highest
                  > > level, we pursue the 'meaning' of Being.
                  > Philosophy is always a
                  > > reduction and substitution of the raw and
                  > immediate ontical view to
                  > > 'logical' representation, explanation, to
                  > explication, or to rational
                  > > interpretation. Some may wonder if it is possible
                  > for human beings to
                  > > ever have a pure state awareness of the ontic, and
                  > I think this is
                  > > what the Buddhist claims they are experiencing in
                  > the meditative state.
                  > >
                  > > Hope that helps - Joe
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Leon McQuaid"
                  >
                  > > wrote:
                  > >> Can someone help me with the meaning of
                  > 'ontico-ontological' and the
                  > > basic
                  > >> ontic/ontology distinction. Is it just a mater
                  > of properties versus
                  > >> catagories?
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  >
                  _________________________________________________________________
                  > >> Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads
                  > with MSn Premium. Get
                  > > 2months
                  > >> FREE*
                  > >>
                  > > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/
                  > > prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/
                  > > enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
                  > Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > >
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  ________________________________________________________________________
                  >
                  ________________________________________________________________________
                  >
                  > Message: 2
                  > Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 23:46:12 -0000
                  > From: "decker150"
                  > Subject: Re: Ontico-ontological
                  >
                  > Hi Tommy, thanks for your insights.
                  >
                  === message truncated ===


                  __________________________________
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
                  http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


                  To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                  Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                  Click Here

                  ---------------------------------
                  Yahoo! Groups Links

                  To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                  ---------------------------------
                  Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                  To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                  Yahoo! Groups Links








                  ---------------------------------
                  Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                  To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                  Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                  Click Here

                  ---------------------------------
                  Yahoo! Groups Links

                  To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                  ---------------------------------
                  Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                  To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                  Yahoo! Groups Links








                  ---------------------------------
                  Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • afolabi adeniyi
                  hi,got your message,i understand what you mean now,sorry i said you were harsh,as i said earlier am new to this course,i started a month back so am not innto
                  Message 8 of 8 , Mar 28 11:09 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    hi,got your message,i understand what you mean now,sorry i said you were harsh,as i said earlier am new to this course,i started a month back so am not innto much yet,that why i asked for am ready assitane,hope you understand,am into logic for now,thats basically the outer part,deductive and inductive arguments,fallacies,so on,hope we can get to talk more on this issues,pls tell me a little about when next you write,bye



                    Lorna Landry <lornalandry@...> wrote:

                    I did not mean to be harsh. I would love to talk about philosophy/existentialism/Sartre with you, but you must show me that you are actually reading some philosophy somewhere. You cannot expect the people on this list to pass this course for you. Why not post what YOU think the answers to your questions are, and we can all discuss them?

                    Lorna

                    afolabi adeniyi <ade4labi@...> wrote: hi,
                    hello lorna landry got your message and thank for that piece of ad any way,i am new to this corse and really needed help,i lack good textbook for now that why i did that,hope we can get to talk really wanna know you,see ya around then lorna,really wanna know you
                    bye

                    Lorna Landry wrote:

                    I think you should do your own homework!



                    afolabi adeniyi wrote: hello,
                    i am a new student to philosophy and i need some answers to my assignment
                    1,five definations of philosophy by five different philosophers
                    2,definations of the following
                    a,dialectic method
                    b,existentialism method
                    c,phenomogical method
                    d,idealism method
                    thank you

                    :
                    take me off this list

                    --- Sartre@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                    > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                    >
                    > There are 4 messages in this issue.
                    >
                    > Topics in this digest:
                    >
                    > 1. Re: Re: Ontico-ontological
                    > From: Tommy Beavitt
                    >
                    > 2. Re: Ontico-ontological
                    > From: "decker150"
                    > 3. Re: Ontico-ontological
                    > From: john@...
                    > 4. Re: Re: Ontico-ontological
                    > From: john@...
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    ________________________________________________________________________
                    >
                    ________________________________________________________________________
                    >
                    > Message: 1
                    > Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 14:39:14 +0000
                    > From: Tommy Beavitt
                    >
                    > Subject: Re: Re: Ontico-ontological
                    >
                    > Great post, Joe, thanks for that.
                    >
                    > I have to confess that I didn't really understand
                    > this distinction
                    > before.
                    >
                    > However, after reading it I felt that you hadn't
                    > perhaps fully
                    > explicated the distinction between ontic and
                    > ontological.
                    >
                    > We are used, as philosophers, to the distinction
                    > between ontology (the
                    > study of being) and epistemology (the study of
                    > knowledge).
                    > Superficially, it may seem that the distinction
                    > between ontic and
                    > ontological follows a similar pattern. There is
                    > being and there is
                    > knowledge (of being).
                    >
                    > However, this is to miss out on the specific
                    > philosophical meaning of
                    > "being". Being is not the collection of objects in
                    > the material world
                    > as your definition of ontic (pure factual reality
                    > independent of human
                    > consciousness) implies. If it were, then we don't
                    > need the
                    > ontic/ontological distinction as the
                    > ontology/epistemology dichotomy
                    > already covers the issue.
                    >
                    > Of course, a final definition of being isn't
                    > possible, has eluded
                    > philosophers from time immemorial.
                    >
                    > Tommy
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > On 7 Mar 2004, at 01:23, decker150 wrote:
                    >
                    > > I will offer an explanation. I understand that
                    > the creation of these
                    > > terms are driven by root Greek meanings and
                    > whenever you add the logos
                    > > to the ontos, the meaning give way to the use of
                    > 'words'. A word,
                    > > spoken or written is a symbolic / representational
                    > expression.
                    > > Existentialism and ontology use 'words' toward an
                    > exegesis of Being,
                    > > towards a critical explanation of Being.
                    > >
                    > > I found it helpful to outline the following
                    > variables.
                    > >
                    > > 1. A word
                    > > 2. The meaning of that word
                    > > 3. The thing in itself to which the word refers
                    > >
                    > > Words and meaning function like indicators, they
                    > point to or refer to
                    > > various things in themself. In structuralism,
                    > there is a
                    > > differentiation between the signifier and the
                    > signified. The ontic is
                    > > the purest factual reality that 'is-there'
                    > independent of human
                    > > consciousness. In the pre-reflective,
                    > pre-ontological condition, I
                    > > gather that we have the raw and immediate world
                    > before us (in a
                    > > ineffable state). However, human consciousness,
                    > especially highly
                    > > developed philosophical thinking is an
                    > interpretive / logical process.
                    > > We don't merely see the world through what
                    > Heidegger called "simple
                    > > viewing", rather, we see something 'as' something;
                    > a door, a chair,
                    > > etc. This is a meaning-driven imbuement. But
                    > mainly, the ontological
                    > > does not merely view raw experience in it's simple
                    > ontic condition,
                    > > but projects words and meaning onto the view
                    > >
                    > > If I point my finger at a coffee cup, the finger
                    > is not the
                    > > cup-itself, it merely points us toward the cup,
                    > refers our attention
                    > > at the cup-in-itself. Words and meaning are
                    > indicators / signifiers;
                    > > whereas the cup-in-itself is 'the indicated' and
                    > 'the signified'.
                    > > From the Greek root 'ontos', the ontic signifies
                    > 'the way things are'
                    > > are correlates to my 3rd item; the thing-in-itself
                    > to which the words
                    > > and their meaning refer.
                    > >
                    > > In the act of interpreting Being, we put words to
                    > use at the highest
                    > > level, we pursue the 'meaning' of Being.
                    > Philosophy is always a
                    > > reduction and substitution of the raw and
                    > immediate ontical view to
                    > > 'logical' representation, explanation, to
                    > explication, or to rational
                    > > interpretation. Some may wonder if it is possible
                    > for human beings to
                    > > ever have a pure state awareness of the ontic, and
                    > I think this is
                    > > what the Buddhist claims they are experiencing in
                    > the meditative state.
                    > >
                    > > Hope that helps - Joe
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Leon McQuaid"
                    >
                    > > wrote:
                    > >> Can someone help me with the meaning of
                    > 'ontico-ontological' and the
                    > > basic
                    > >> ontic/ontology distinction. Is it just a mater
                    > of properties versus
                    > >> catagories?
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    >
                    _________________________________________________________________
                    > >> Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads
                    > with MSn Premium. Get
                    > > 2months
                    > >> FREE*
                    > >>
                    > > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/
                    > > prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/
                    > > enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
                    > Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    > >
                    > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    ________________________________________________________________________
                    >
                    ________________________________________________________________________
                    >
                    > Message: 2
                    > Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 23:46:12 -0000
                    > From: "decker150"
                    > Subject: Re: Ontico-ontological
                    >
                    > Hi Tommy, thanks for your insights.
                    >
                    === message truncated ===


                    __________________________________
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
                    http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/


                    To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                    Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                    Click Here

                    ---------------------------------
                    Yahoo! Groups Links

                    To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                    ---------------------------------
                    Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                    To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    Yahoo! Groups Links








                    ---------------------------------
                    Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                    To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                    Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                    Click Here

                    ---------------------------------
                    Yahoo! Groups Links

                    To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                    ---------------------------------
                    Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                    To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    Yahoo! Groups Links








                    ---------------------------------
                    Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                    To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com




                    ---------------------------------
                    Yahoo! Groups Links

                    To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                    ---------------------------------
                    WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.