Laurence wrote:
have a habit of dragging on in a tone that begins tetchily and ends up =
in a kind of totalising self-righteousness.
(Yes,I can see that that could easily occur and become tedious.
I regret not having responded in a more considered way-I let my
emotion cork out on this one-which doesn't help anyone-least of
all the original thread-re Husserl.)
Surely care must be exercised. I do not know to what Wilton Rodger =
referred when he tells us about Heidegger's supposed comments on =
Husserl, but I do think that he should tell us, precisely.
Absolutely-it was a quote which I need to source--I shall do so
as time permits,then perhaps a discussion based upon the validity of
the original text can occur)
This "debate" (for it rarely attains such a level)
could we not this time steer the N word in H to a more useful
level?
_I should like to offer apologies to Joel and the List for my
invective and non-existent scholarship.The N in H thingum has
been festering away as a problem-considering the greatness of
the philosophy-which is unfathomable to me..This is a discussion
which- if it were to proceed in a mode of fresh accomodation to
differing positions-may in fact provide needed research on
this puzzling problem/
.When I see a White Supremacy
Neo Nazi hate group parading Heidi as one of their own(a thread on
the Web--well I lose it,I am sorry.
It provokes the full gamut of entfremdung squared and I end up
in my own semi-lunatic fringe gibbering like Goebbels..
However I am pleased to see that the discussion can in fact take
place,but with somewhat more percision that I have been able to
offer so far.
BTW, perhaps if this thread continues it could be the N in H
and allow the H/Husserl to return to its original nature?
Thereby to allow the archives some opportunity of making sense,
even if I am not?
Cheers,
Wilton..
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
have a habit of dragging on in a tone that begins tetchily and ends up =
in a kind of totalising self-righteousness.
(Yes,I can see that that could easily occur and become tedious.
I regret not having responded in a more considered way-I let my
emotion cork out on this one-which doesn't help anyone-least of
all the original thread-re Husserl.)
Surely care must be exercised. I do not know to what Wilton Rodger =
referred when he tells us about Heidegger's supposed comments on =
Husserl, but I do think that he should tell us, precisely.
Absolutely-it was a quote which I need to source--I shall do so
as time permits,then perhaps a discussion based upon the validity of
the original text can occur)
This "debate" (for it rarely attains such a level)
could we not this time steer the N word in H to a more useful
level?
_I should like to offer apologies to Joel and the List for my
invective and non-existent scholarship.The N in H thingum has
been festering away as a problem-considering the greatness of
the philosophy-which is unfathomable to me..This is a discussion
which- if it were to proceed in a mode of fresh accomodation to
differing positions-may in fact provide needed research on
this puzzling problem/
.When I see a White Supremacy
Neo Nazi hate group parading Heidi as one of their own(a thread on
the Web--well I lose it,I am sorry.
It provokes the full gamut of entfremdung squared and I end up
in my own semi-lunatic fringe gibbering like Goebbels..
However I am pleased to see that the discussion can in fact take
place,but with somewhat more percision that I have been able to
offer so far.
BTW, perhaps if this thread continues it could be the N in H
and allow the H/Husserl to return to its original nature?
Thereby to allow the archives some opportunity of making sense,
even if I am not?
Cheers,
Wilton..
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---