Seyn, estre, seer, be-ing, Beyng

“Be-ing” (Seyn) means not only the actuality of the actual (Wirklichkeit des Wirklichen), and not only the possibility of the possible (Möglichkeit des Möglichen) – and not at all only the being (Sein) of a given being (Seienden) – but rather be-ing (Seyn) in its originary essential swaying (Wesung) in the full cleavage (Zerklüftung), where the essential swaying is not limited to “presence.” (Anwesenheit) (GA65:§34; GA65EM:52)

La graphie «estre» n’est là que pour transposer la graphie allemande « Seyn ». Dans toute la métaphysique n’est jamais interrogé que l’être de l’étant (οὐσία). La question en quête de l’être (l’estre soi même) y est encore ininterrogée. Heidegger propose donc de distinguer cet estre (différent de l’être de l’étant) en écrivant Seyn. (GA65FF:15)

VIDE: (SEYN E DERIVADOS->http://hyperlexikon.hyperlogos.info/modules/lexikon/search.php?option=1&term=seyn)

pt. seer (Casanova)
fr. estre (Fédier)
be-ing (Emad)

O termo “seer” remete-nos a um recurso utilizado por Heidegger a partir da década de 1930 para diferenciar a questão metafísica acerca do ser enquanto a pergunta sobre o ser do ente na totalidade do pensamento interessado em colocar pela primeira vez a verdade do próprio ser em questão. Enquanto a metafísica compreende o ser como o ente supremo (óntos ón) e como o fundamento último da realidade, o pensamento voltado para a possibilidade de um outro início da filosofia aquiesce radicalmente à impossibilidade de transformar o ser em objeto de tematização e procura acompanhar o ser em seus acontecimentos históricos. Para marcar mais distintamente esta diferença, Heidegger cria uma distinção pautada no modo arcaico de escrita do verbo ser em alemão (Seyn), um modo de escrita que ainda era usual em autores do século XIX tais como Fichte, Schelling e Hegel. Surgem, assim, os termos “Sein” e “Seyn”. Nós traduzimos estes termos respectivamente por “ser” e “seer” em função apenas do fato de a grafia arcaica de ser em português ser feita com duas letras “e”. Quanto a este fato, cf. Augusto Magne, A Demanda do Santo Graal, Rio de Janeiro, Ed. Imprensa Nacional, 1944, p. 37-9 entre outras. (Casanova; MACMundo1:10)

On ne peut rien trancher concernant l’estre (Seyn) en faisant appel à un tel appareil conceptuel (Je retiens la graphie « estre » pour traduire la graphie « Seyn » qu’adoptera Heidegger ultérieurement avec sa nouvelle conception de l’Être (qu’il associera à la promotion de l’Ereignis), « Être considéré non plus comme le fondement de l’étant (Sein étant l’Être de l’étant. N.d.T.), mais comme le fondement de l’éclaircie à partir d’un retrait et d’une occultation abyssales ». (la phrase entre guillemets est prise chez Françoise Dastur (FD1, page 109). N.d.T.) (ETJA)

Near the end of Contributions Heidegger remarks that, by writing Seyn instead of Sein, he wants to “indicate that (Sein) here is no longer thought metaphysically.” (GA65:307) Thus he elucidates the specific way in which these words, Sein and Seyn, with their frequent appearance throughout Contributions, are to be understood. But how do we reflect this understanding in translation?

Heidegger uses the eighteenth-century orthography of Sein, i.e., Seyn, in order to indicate that, when he writes Sein, he means the way Sein is grasped metaphysically and, when he writes Seyn, he means the way Sein is no longer grasped metaphysically. In both cases, then, he is dealing with one and the same Sein and not, as it were, with Sein differentiated from Seyn: He intends no opposition. Accordingly, to use two different words for translating Sein and Seyn—e.g., “being” and “beon”— would increase the danger of carrying too far a simple orthographic device. It suggests too much of a “division.” Thus we realized (a) that translating Seyn with a new English word is misleading, in indicating too great a delineation, and (b) that, if available, an orthographic device is enough for drawing attention to Seyn.

Considering the fact that both Sein and Seyn are pronounced in exactly the same way and that the difference between these words is noticeable only in writing, we decided to use the English word “being” for translating Sein and to hyphenate the same word as “be-ing” for translating Seyn. In this way we have two English words, being and be-ing, that, like Sein and Seyn, are pronounced in the same way but written differently. Thus we are able to avoid using a “new” word for Seyn—like beon—which could be misunderstood as standing in opposition to “being.” For, distinguishing Seyn from Sein is not the same as creating an opposition between them. (It should be noted, however, that, as F.-W. von Herrmann writes in the Editor’s Epilogue, “The alternating spellings “Seyn”and “Sein” (”be-ing” and “being”) were left unchanged, even where the matter at hand is “Seyn” (”be-ing”) and not “Sein” (”being”) and where Heidegger here and there, apparently during the writing, did not consistently maintain the different spelling.” We have made the same decision and consistently translated “Seym” with “being” and “Sein” with “being.”) (GA65EM:xxii-xxiii)