Since morals don't represent or concentrate some sort of "eternal truth", then the ethically charged concept of normality is a changing concept of our social etiquette and of an individual' s personal system of values. Especially the term "normal" doesn't really have a definition of its own and it hasn't even been thematized as an autunomous term.

The "in-between" refers to the collective group of a historical people and, of course, the artist dissolves in his/her work of art. So it' s really hard to identify which person Heidegger is making this claim for, it probably goes to communalities that share the same historical world (it certainly doesn't refer to subjective experience).

Also, *unpopular opinion*: I haven't found anything Nazi-related during my reading of Heidegger, except for this mentioned above. This grouped "return to Being" through art looks kind of similar to the "Nazi political regime as a work of art". I'd really like to hear your opinion on this -controversial, I know- claim.

I think that the predicate that makes God transcend time is that of causation. Timeless (outside of time) should simultaneously mean "time's (or any other entity's) condition".

Yes, I am partly aware of Merleau-Ponty's theory, actually there is a book called "Heidegger's neglect of the body" that deals with just that (the problem of the body and its senses)
I' m ready for the study group, just started reading Phenomenology of Perception after seeing your messages.

I hope this makes sense (I am Greek).

I agree with you, Arne, but I think that the how of this case is entirely left to ontic sciences because maybe it would not really fit Heidegger's theory. The point is this rendering, the appropriating event, but 1) bodily senses are strangely left out and 2) the works of art mentioned in the book seem to have a resemblance to tools in how we approach them -they have this referential character that allows them to be-in-the-world (otherwise they would be mere objects?)

We are, but not in the sense that we actually are agents experiencing the work of art, in fact it seems crazy to Heidegger to talk about "imagination" or any other products of sensory experience. So how do we exactly make the work of art, well, intilligible?

I think that art should have its inner purposefulness and not receive its meaning from anything exterior- such as winning as the purpose n video games.