>Early H or late H? I don't think the early H thought
>in those terms, but you would probably find it in the
>concept of fallenness (spoken glibly, losing track of
>the big picture in favor of the immediate). In late H,
>it would be the result of the way of interpreting
>Being that characterizes the modern world, that beings
>are in essence beings to be used by human beings,
>including humen beings, this being this logical
>culmination of the Unfolding of Western Metaphysics (TM).
And that conveys some meaning to your mind does it? Its gibberish. You can interpret gibberish any way you want of course, that's why people spout gibberish. But since the original is merely vacuous nonsense, all other interpretation is equally valid.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas