I read
this by the same person who is this edition’s “Who Said It?”
The being that exists is man. Man alone exists. Rocks are, but they do not exist. Trees are, but they do not exist. Horses are, but they do not exist. Angels are, but they do not exist. God is, but He does not exist…
|
So now I am excited. This has struck a chord in me, and I am absolutely certain that the author is going to state a fundamental truth. I know that the curtains are about to be parted, and the light will come in. I am positive that these statements can only lead to a revealing of the secrets of life, a solving of a mystery. I am ready to receive this knowledge as the author continues:
(this does not mean) that man alone is a real being while all other beings are unreal…
|
So I guess you would have to set up some sort of qualifications upon revealing the truth. The author continues:
“man exists” means: man is that being whose Being is distinguished by the open-standing standing-in in the unconcealedness of Being, from Being, in Being.
|
What? What does this mean? Where do I even start to begin to understand this? Especially after awaiting a somewhat more easily understood revelation or at least a very small truth.
So this is how far I got. I realize that we are trying to define the phrase “man exists.” What does the author mean by “man exists?” Good.
The author goes on to say that man is the being; the specific “is”; man is the creature – if you were to include all non-living things in the category of creature; man is that being whose Being is distinguished by, whose Isness is categorized by, whose Existence is differentiated from all others’ Existence by…
By what? “By the open-standing standing-in in the unconcealedness of Being, from Being, in Being.”
Where can I go with this?
Does the author mean that man can consider Being from the point of standing within the center of the unconcealedness of Being, being open to it; and then man can also consider Being from outside of Being and from in Being itself, not just the unconcealdness of it?
Did any of that make sense?
So this is how far I got. I realize that we are trying to define the phrase “man exists.” What does the author mean by “man exists?” Good.
The author goes on to say that man is the being; the specific “is”; man is the creature – if you were to include all non-living things in the category of creature; man is that being whose Being is distinguished by, whose Isness is categorized by, whose Existence is differentiated from all others’ Existence by…
By what? “By the open-standing standing-in in the unconcealedness of Being, from Being, in Being.”
Where can I go with this?
Does the author mean that man can consider Being from the point of standing within the center of the unconcealedness of Being, being open to it; and then man can also consider Being from outside of Being and from in Being itself, not just the unconcealdness of it?
Did any of that make sense?