>But your reasoning is "All that is in relation is relative", "Everything
>is in relation", therefore "Everything is relative". The major premise is
>false because *it excludes the relation of the absolute to the inbetween.*
>
I have no idea what you are talking about here (*). The major premise is a
definitional tautology--the only kind of "valid" axiom! Perhaps that is
what you were trying to say here:
>the major premise has no meaning outside of a simply manifest,
>self-evident tautology.
Your logic chopping seems to me to undermine rather than further your
apparent attempts at comprehension (if they were not entirely disingenuous
to begin with). As for the assumptions which you make about where
dialogue can and should begin, your oppressively traditionalist views beg a
lot of the bigger questions Heidegger raises about the historical tyrrany
of the logos. You might enjoy bashing skulls with Derrida's _Aporias_.
(Sadly I don't have time--or the inclination--to dissect your dissections;
I trust that any careful reader will be able to recognize their
fallaciousness.)
Iain
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
"Und wer gut verfolgt, lernt leicht f o l g e n: --ist er doch
einmal--hinterher!"
"And whoever persecutes well, learns readily how _to follow_: for he is
used to going after somebody else!"
--Nietzsche, "The Ugliest [haesslichste] Man" [i.e., the
Socrates-in-Nietzsche], _Zarathustra_ IV.7.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>is in relation", therefore "Everything is relative". The major premise is
>false because *it excludes the relation of the absolute to the inbetween.*
>
I have no idea what you are talking about here (*). The major premise is a
definitional tautology--the only kind of "valid" axiom! Perhaps that is
what you were trying to say here:
>the major premise has no meaning outside of a simply manifest,
>self-evident tautology.
Your logic chopping seems to me to undermine rather than further your
apparent attempts at comprehension (if they were not entirely disingenuous
to begin with). As for the assumptions which you make about where
dialogue can and should begin, your oppressively traditionalist views beg a
lot of the bigger questions Heidegger raises about the historical tyrrany
of the logos. You might enjoy bashing skulls with Derrida's _Aporias_.
(Sadly I don't have time--or the inclination--to dissect your dissections;
I trust that any careful reader will be able to recognize their
fallaciousness.)
Iain
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
"Und wer gut verfolgt, lernt leicht f o l g e n: --ist er doch
einmal--hinterher!"
"And whoever persecutes well, learns readily how _to follow_: for he is
used to going after somebody else!"
--Nietzsche, "The Ugliest [haesslichste] Man" [i.e., the
Socrates-in-Nietzsche], _Zarathustra_ IV.7.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---