In a message dated 06/06/2004 23:00:06 GMT Standard Time,
[email protected]_ (mailto:m.riddoch@xxxxxxxxxx) writes:
On Monday, June 7, 2004, at 02:45 AM, [email protected]_
(mailto:GEVANS613@xxxxxxx) wrote:
Jud [earlier]
Surely Malcolm this old played-out 'will to will' wheeze is just another
name for the fixed and persistent intent or purpose part of old mother 'human
nature' — the way that human beings have been since the year dot one?
Malcolm:
That's more the Nietzschean version of it but yes, that's essentially where
'life' comes into it. Again you're a natural born Nietzschean Jud.
Jud:
So you want to mount your white horse and attempt to change human nature do
you? Even Shagger Heidegger didn't try that - he just appealed to the most
base, crudest levels of human nature, as manifested by his screwball Nazi
admirers and the skinhead groupies that attended his lectures baaing like shroven
sheep. Today we call it 'Hate Crime.' Is not Heidegger and the
knuckle-trailing arboreal troop that swing behind him deliberately and continually
complicating simple concepts by dressing them up as something different and more
complicated, which is a feature of all disciplines who wish to impart seriousness
to their pseudoscientific investigations?
Malcolm
I'd say you're the expert here on imparting seriousness to pseudoscientific
investigations such as AIT. As far as I've read Heidegger he's definitely a
genuine philosopher and his texts are very logically written, but you'd
actually have to read them to understand anything beyond your own pseudoscientific
interpretation.
Jud:
There is nothing pseudoscientific about my analysis of 'IS' and 'Being' pick
up any grammar book and see for yourself. As for Heidegger don't even
MENTION him in this connection - though at least he admitted his ignorance on this
point in print. look at the most monstrous example of symbolic form ever
created — a symbolic Leviathanic form of human existence itself - DASEIN - the
naive product of the grammatical gerund 'being there.' No, the way to fight
Heidegger is NOT with his own formal abstractionist weaponry, the way to fight
Heidegger is to inform the audience [and the Heideggereans themselves] that the
forms, and his contrived neologisms, and Greekish mistranslations which he
uses as weapons are cognitive illusions and DO NOT EXIST, and that that he is
the philosophical equivalent of the Emperor with no clothes.
The Doctor Mengele of Philosophy and the mad Nietzsche before him have
played their own parts in the reinforcement and buttressing of this will to power
and 'will to will' business and given this claptrap a certain academic
imprimatur — so you could argue that they are as much responsible for the way the
nutters in the Shitehouse are acting as anybody else.
Malcolm
In that Heidegger lays bare a philosophical version of the inner workings of
Nazi ideology in his critique of power then yes, I think he's a dangerous
writer, as was Nietzsche. It still stands that what Heidegger described as will
to will was an extremely pessimistic interpretation of the catastrophe that
was Nazism. Heidegger's Nietzsche is a monumental deconstruction of everything
that he saw as wrong headed in Hitlerism and its internal order.
Jud:
This is just YOUR interpretation Malcolm or the interpretation of troopers
in the Royal Mounted Corps of Apologists. If he felt this way - then why did
the little git ponce all over Europe flaunting his Nazi badge - and why didn't
he apologise for his involvement in Nazism when it was safe to do so, after
he emerged out of the mental clinic and was excused by the puppets on the
denazification tribunal [ably assisted by the Judas Arendt? You know as well as
I do that to be pessimistic is not to criticise. We can be pessimistic about
the fruitful outcome of some enterprise, yet still back it when the cards are
on the table.
(the very reason I shall vote Labour next time - though the grinning
gargoyle Blair makes me vomit.]
Malcolm
The will to will becomes the completion of metaphysics as the history of
error and the obliteration of the truth of being, how do you see this critique
as a reinforcement and buttressing of the will to power? Your glib refrains are
making less and less sense to me.
Jud: Hahahah! A load of utter kangeroo bollocks Malcolm. The completion of
metaphysiics my ass. The will to will, or in plain English - 'an ongoing fixity
and persistent intent of thought or purpose, ' is only metaphysical as part
of the cognitive rigidity of metaphysicalists, such as religious nutters of
East and West, Heideggerians and other transcendentalists stuck in an
ontological time-warp. You can read Heidegger untill your eyes bleed and you will
never get rid of metaphysicality in thought and purpose. The only way to
irradicate metaphysics is to do what Heidegger and his pals did to the Jews - kill
them all. And that is neither possible nor desireable.
How would you respond if the craven creature [who walks with his arms like a
gibbon — have you noticed?] that is Bush suddenly surprised you and turning
around after spitting his baccy chaw-juice on the floor and responded:
"Eyerack? Eyerack? Eyerack? What's so different with Eyerack? It's a
question of the strong and the weak that counts old boy. Haven't you read your
Nietzsche? Never heard of Heidegger? Listen Mister Chips Rafferty, might is right
and do you kangaroo rustlers HONESTLY think the game has altered just because
we've got heat-seeking missiles instead of battle-axes or boomerangs?"
Malcolm
Being a good aussie boy I already see the world in pragmatic terms and trust
pushy yanks about as far as I can throw them. Same goes for you pommie
bastards mate. And guess what, we anglo celts are all in this big mess together,
from Abu Ghraib to dismembered Afghan infants and whatever comes next in our
terror war for oil.
Jud:
What kind of answer is that? I'm afraid you've been infected with
Deflectionitus Heideggeronicus. The question posed was: 'What is so different with
Iraq? Both Nietszche and Heidegger urged subjugation by action by the strong over
the weak. so what is different, and why the hypocritical bleating from the
Heidyites all of a sudden?' Abu Ghraib? Dismembered infants? That kind of
thing wouldn't worry N or H so what's the big deal? Heidegger's camps cannot be
compared to the body count in Afghanisstan of Eyerack can they? Wha... wha...
whats' that you say? 'Heidegger's camps!?' Heidegger didn't....' Perhaps you
are in need of a little reminder Malcolm - catch this:
WHAT HEIDEGGER VOTED FOR:
Hitler declared his intentions openly, and the Nazis committed atrocities
openly. Conventional historians account for the lack of photographs and docu
ments by claiming that the Holocaust was so secret that no photographs were ever
taken, and no incriminating documents were allowed to exist. This is
supposed to have been true even when the Final Solution was in the planning stages,
as far back as 1941.
Hitler talked about exterminating or annihilating the Jews on many
occasions. For example, here is a sentence from Mein Kampf. (This is from page 338 of
the Houghton-Mifflin hardback edition. Other references to extermination may
be found on pages 169 and 679.) Hitler wrote,
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside from all the
positive struggle for the soul of our people, their international poisoners
are exterminated.
We are supposed to believe that Hitler announced to the world that the Jews
would be annihilated, and at the same time went to great lengths to maintain
the pretense that they were not being annihilated. The intention was declared
openly, but the act itself was so secret that the Nazis never even discussed
it among themselves. This is nonsense. On page 679 he said this:
If at the beginning of the War and during the War twelve or fifteen thousand
of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as
happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the
field, the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain. On the
contrary: twelve thousand scoundrels eliminated in time might have saved the
lives of millions of Germans, valuable for the future.
At that point the "secret" was already out. Having broached the idea of
gassing the Jews in Mein Kampf, it would make no sense for Hitler to pretend it
wasn't happening, if he actually did it.
In other words Heidegger went along with it and to prove it joined the party
not with a whimper but wit a loud BANG.
If Nietzsche and Heidegger were right, we should agree wholeheartedly with
Goebbels when he said: 'Nun, Volk steh auf, und Sturm brich los!'
(Nation, Rise Up, and Let the Storm Break Loose,' and be grateful to the
percipient 'will to power-rangers' — the valiant Neocons [Gawd Bless em] for
taking note of what Der alte syphilitische Sünder Herr bloody Nietszche said,
and acting upon it accordingly on our behalf and that of our anglo democracies?
Malcolm
I think Heidegger was right in his critique of Nazism in relation to the
will to will of global power,
Jud:
Malcolm in the bowels of Christ THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 'GLOBAL POWER' and
'it' certainly doesn't have a 'brain' which is capable of exercising an
ongoing fixity of purpose. There are POWERFUL HUMAN BEINGS in control of the
levers of power - the evil clique who had invaded the Shitehouse for example, the
roll-call of executives who are driven by the need to make profits and keep
their shareholders happy. It's no use you burying your head in the sand and
talking about 'Global Power' as if itself was some monsterous uncaring
commercial Levaithan These are REAL FLESH AND BLOOD PEOPLE and your own Aussie
Newspaper mogul is one of the worst.
Malcolm
he pointed this out as a gigantic problem facing humanity as a whole and
called for internationalist leadership in the problem concerning technology. I
don't see how this means we should agree wholeheartedly etc.... You disappoint
me Jud, there's no logic to your tirade tonight, you're all upside down.
Jud:
He pointed this out in a desparate effort to distance himself for his
craven support of the above programme you mean. How naive you are Malcolm - make
sure you steer well clear of any salesman offering you the Sydney Opera House
for a knock-down price!. He was way off beam - the problem facing humanity
is humanity not technology. God give me strength te man was a COMPLETE idiot!
It is the way that humanity uses technology that counts - you can either use a
boomerang to scratch your back or you can throw it and kill people.
Do you think that if the shoe was on the other foot, and we were the weak
ones with the oil, that the kindly and trustworthy old Arabs would treat us
differently?
No, what's your point?
Jud: By 'NO' you aquiesce then that the kindly and trustworthy old Arabs
would not treat us differently?
Jud:
Come now — do you think that Arab human nature [will to will/will to power]
is any different to ours?
No, apart from the simple fact that the historical power relations have
overwhelmingly favoured us westerners.
Jud: That is because we worked harder and built up our power instead of
pissing off to the Mosque every five minutes and wasting our time when we could
have been working It's because WE had the guts and the determination and the
commonsense to get rid of restrictive religion and supplant it with forms which
were more conducive to the production of wealth, culture, political freedoms
etc. OK - to a large extent we made a balls of it - but at least we didn't
sit around scratching our arses all day with a load of flies in our eyes. I
think our Arab cousins are every bit as fair minded and mean spirited, shifty
and honest, brutal and peace loving as we anglo democrats are.
Jud; Try living in Egypt for a couple of years like I did - you'd soon wise
up.
All this Heideggerian flim-flam about 'historical order of being' and
'intersubjective' historical order is a load of academic hogwash. We want petrol
for our cars — so we don't have to walk in the rain and we want oil to drive our
industries, so we can make things to sell that make life easy for us and
make loadsamoney while we do it.
Jud:
I think you're getting a bit overexcited and resorting to a load of
unacademic hogwash but yes, we need cheap oil to underwrite constant economic growth,
transport by land, sea and air, industrial agriculture and its fertilizers,
as well as the wide access to commodities, education and health that is
predicated on a strong global and domestic economy. Oil depletion means all this
is going to get a lot more expensive and a lot more people are going to miss
out on the benefits of modernization, and not just the Indians and Chinese
either but 'us' as well. What's your point?
Jud: You've just made it for me.
The political and economic analysis of your piece is truly impressive and is
highly readable — what mars it are the parts when you depart from your
brilliant feet-on-the-ground politico-economic dissection, and introduce the
gratuitous irrelevancies of the kooky old fart Heidegger and the Loopy Loner from
Leipzig
Malcolm
Thanks for your qualified praise but my interpretation of the current world
order is specifically derived from the Heidegger critique which you fail to
engage with beyond your own gratuitous irrelevancies you kooky old fart.
Jud:
Stop it - you're making me get a hard on! Malcolm:
Malcolm
If Mr Crifasi has truly departed then you're the only goad I have left on
this list barring one of the many lurkers speaking up, so I'm afraid you're just
going to have to lift your game a bit Jud. Come on, I dare you.
Jud:
Go ahead Malcolm - at least you show signs of life. I think somebody has
sneaked up on the others and part-embalmed them thinking they had snuffed it.
One has even written to the list concerning the philosophy of being out of
sorts! Oy! Yoy, Yoy! - God give me strength! ;-) [I use the term 'God'
metaphorically of course)
Nullius in Verba _http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm) JUD EVANS - XVANS
XPERIENTIALISM
sent unspellchecked in a hurry,
Cheers,
Jud
Nullius in Verba
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
JUD EVANS - XVANS XPERIENTIALISM
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
[email protected]_ (mailto:m.riddoch@xxxxxxxxxx) writes:
On Monday, June 7, 2004, at 02:45 AM, [email protected]_
(mailto:GEVANS613@xxxxxxx) wrote:
Jud [earlier]
Surely Malcolm this old played-out 'will to will' wheeze is just another
name for the fixed and persistent intent or purpose part of old mother 'human
nature' — the way that human beings have been since the year dot one?
Malcolm:
That's more the Nietzschean version of it but yes, that's essentially where
'life' comes into it. Again you're a natural born Nietzschean Jud.
Jud:
So you want to mount your white horse and attempt to change human nature do
you? Even Shagger Heidegger didn't try that - he just appealed to the most
base, crudest levels of human nature, as manifested by his screwball Nazi
admirers and the skinhead groupies that attended his lectures baaing like shroven
sheep. Today we call it 'Hate Crime.' Is not Heidegger and the
knuckle-trailing arboreal troop that swing behind him deliberately and continually
complicating simple concepts by dressing them up as something different and more
complicated, which is a feature of all disciplines who wish to impart seriousness
to their pseudoscientific investigations?
Malcolm
I'd say you're the expert here on imparting seriousness to pseudoscientific
investigations such as AIT. As far as I've read Heidegger he's definitely a
genuine philosopher and his texts are very logically written, but you'd
actually have to read them to understand anything beyond your own pseudoscientific
interpretation.
Jud:
There is nothing pseudoscientific about my analysis of 'IS' and 'Being' pick
up any grammar book and see for yourself. As for Heidegger don't even
MENTION him in this connection - though at least he admitted his ignorance on this
point in print. look at the most monstrous example of symbolic form ever
created — a symbolic Leviathanic form of human existence itself - DASEIN - the
naive product of the grammatical gerund 'being there.' No, the way to fight
Heidegger is NOT with his own formal abstractionist weaponry, the way to fight
Heidegger is to inform the audience [and the Heideggereans themselves] that the
forms, and his contrived neologisms, and Greekish mistranslations which he
uses as weapons are cognitive illusions and DO NOT EXIST, and that that he is
the philosophical equivalent of the Emperor with no clothes.
The Doctor Mengele of Philosophy and the mad Nietzsche before him have
played their own parts in the reinforcement and buttressing of this will to power
and 'will to will' business and given this claptrap a certain academic
imprimatur — so you could argue that they are as much responsible for the way the
nutters in the Shitehouse are acting as anybody else.
Malcolm
In that Heidegger lays bare a philosophical version of the inner workings of
Nazi ideology in his critique of power then yes, I think he's a dangerous
writer, as was Nietzsche. It still stands that what Heidegger described as will
to will was an extremely pessimistic interpretation of the catastrophe that
was Nazism. Heidegger's Nietzsche is a monumental deconstruction of everything
that he saw as wrong headed in Hitlerism and its internal order.
Jud:
This is just YOUR interpretation Malcolm or the interpretation of troopers
in the Royal Mounted Corps of Apologists. If he felt this way - then why did
the little git ponce all over Europe flaunting his Nazi badge - and why didn't
he apologise for his involvement in Nazism when it was safe to do so, after
he emerged out of the mental clinic and was excused by the puppets on the
denazification tribunal [ably assisted by the Judas Arendt? You know as well as
I do that to be pessimistic is not to criticise. We can be pessimistic about
the fruitful outcome of some enterprise, yet still back it when the cards are
on the table.
(the very reason I shall vote Labour next time - though the grinning
gargoyle Blair makes me vomit.]
Malcolm
The will to will becomes the completion of metaphysics as the history of
error and the obliteration of the truth of being, how do you see this critique
as a reinforcement and buttressing of the will to power? Your glib refrains are
making less and less sense to me.
Jud: Hahahah! A load of utter kangeroo bollocks Malcolm. The completion of
metaphysiics my ass. The will to will, or in plain English - 'an ongoing fixity
and persistent intent of thought or purpose, ' is only metaphysical as part
of the cognitive rigidity of metaphysicalists, such as religious nutters of
East and West, Heideggerians and other transcendentalists stuck in an
ontological time-warp. You can read Heidegger untill your eyes bleed and you will
never get rid of metaphysicality in thought and purpose. The only way to
irradicate metaphysics is to do what Heidegger and his pals did to the Jews - kill
them all. And that is neither possible nor desireable.
How would you respond if the craven creature [who walks with his arms like a
gibbon — have you noticed?] that is Bush suddenly surprised you and turning
around after spitting his baccy chaw-juice on the floor and responded:
"Eyerack? Eyerack? Eyerack? What's so different with Eyerack? It's a
question of the strong and the weak that counts old boy. Haven't you read your
Nietzsche? Never heard of Heidegger? Listen Mister Chips Rafferty, might is right
and do you kangaroo rustlers HONESTLY think the game has altered just because
we've got heat-seeking missiles instead of battle-axes or boomerangs?"
Malcolm
Being a good aussie boy I already see the world in pragmatic terms and trust
pushy yanks about as far as I can throw them. Same goes for you pommie
bastards mate. And guess what, we anglo celts are all in this big mess together,
from Abu Ghraib to dismembered Afghan infants and whatever comes next in our
terror war for oil.
Jud:
What kind of answer is that? I'm afraid you've been infected with
Deflectionitus Heideggeronicus. The question posed was: 'What is so different with
Iraq? Both Nietszche and Heidegger urged subjugation by action by the strong over
the weak. so what is different, and why the hypocritical bleating from the
Heidyites all of a sudden?' Abu Ghraib? Dismembered infants? That kind of
thing wouldn't worry N or H so what's the big deal? Heidegger's camps cannot be
compared to the body count in Afghanisstan of Eyerack can they? Wha... wha...
whats' that you say? 'Heidegger's camps!?' Heidegger didn't....' Perhaps you
are in need of a little reminder Malcolm - catch this:
WHAT HEIDEGGER VOTED FOR:
Hitler declared his intentions openly, and the Nazis committed atrocities
openly. Conventional historians account for the lack of photographs and docu
ments by claiming that the Holocaust was so secret that no photographs were ever
taken, and no incriminating documents were allowed to exist. This is
supposed to have been true even when the Final Solution was in the planning stages,
as far back as 1941.
Hitler talked about exterminating or annihilating the Jews on many
occasions. For example, here is a sentence from Mein Kampf. (This is from page 338 of
the Houghton-Mifflin hardback edition. Other references to extermination may
be found on pages 169 and 679.) Hitler wrote,
The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside from all the
positive struggle for the soul of our people, their international poisoners
are exterminated.
We are supposed to believe that Hitler announced to the world that the Jews
would be annihilated, and at the same time went to great lengths to maintain
the pretense that they were not being annihilated. The intention was declared
openly, but the act itself was so secret that the Nazis never even discussed
it among themselves. This is nonsense. On page 679 he said this:
If at the beginning of the War and during the War twelve or fifteen thousand
of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as
happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the
field, the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain. On the
contrary: twelve thousand scoundrels eliminated in time might have saved the
lives of millions of Germans, valuable for the future.
At that point the "secret" was already out. Having broached the idea of
gassing the Jews in Mein Kampf, it would make no sense for Hitler to pretend it
wasn't happening, if he actually did it.
In other words Heidegger went along with it and to prove it joined the party
not with a whimper but wit a loud BANG.
If Nietzsche and Heidegger were right, we should agree wholeheartedly with
Goebbels when he said: 'Nun, Volk steh auf, und Sturm brich los!'
(Nation, Rise Up, and Let the Storm Break Loose,' and be grateful to the
percipient 'will to power-rangers' — the valiant Neocons [Gawd Bless em] for
taking note of what Der alte syphilitische Sünder Herr bloody Nietszche said,
and acting upon it accordingly on our behalf and that of our anglo democracies?
Malcolm
I think Heidegger was right in his critique of Nazism in relation to the
will to will of global power,
Jud:
Malcolm in the bowels of Christ THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 'GLOBAL POWER' and
'it' certainly doesn't have a 'brain' which is capable of exercising an
ongoing fixity of purpose. There are POWERFUL HUMAN BEINGS in control of the
levers of power - the evil clique who had invaded the Shitehouse for example, the
roll-call of executives who are driven by the need to make profits and keep
their shareholders happy. It's no use you burying your head in the sand and
talking about 'Global Power' as if itself was some monsterous uncaring
commercial Levaithan These are REAL FLESH AND BLOOD PEOPLE and your own Aussie
Newspaper mogul is one of the worst.
Malcolm
he pointed this out as a gigantic problem facing humanity as a whole and
called for internationalist leadership in the problem concerning technology. I
don't see how this means we should agree wholeheartedly etc.... You disappoint
me Jud, there's no logic to your tirade tonight, you're all upside down.
Jud:
He pointed this out in a desparate effort to distance himself for his
craven support of the above programme you mean. How naive you are Malcolm - make
sure you steer well clear of any salesman offering you the Sydney Opera House
for a knock-down price!. He was way off beam - the problem facing humanity
is humanity not technology. God give me strength te man was a COMPLETE idiot!
It is the way that humanity uses technology that counts - you can either use a
boomerang to scratch your back or you can throw it and kill people.
Do you think that if the shoe was on the other foot, and we were the weak
ones with the oil, that the kindly and trustworthy old Arabs would treat us
differently?
No, what's your point?
Jud: By 'NO' you aquiesce then that the kindly and trustworthy old Arabs
would not treat us differently?
Jud:
Come now — do you think that Arab human nature [will to will/will to power]
is any different to ours?
No, apart from the simple fact that the historical power relations have
overwhelmingly favoured us westerners.
Jud: That is because we worked harder and built up our power instead of
pissing off to the Mosque every five minutes and wasting our time when we could
have been working It's because WE had the guts and the determination and the
commonsense to get rid of restrictive religion and supplant it with forms which
were more conducive to the production of wealth, culture, political freedoms
etc. OK - to a large extent we made a balls of it - but at least we didn't
sit around scratching our arses all day with a load of flies in our eyes. I
think our Arab cousins are every bit as fair minded and mean spirited, shifty
and honest, brutal and peace loving as we anglo democrats are.
Jud; Try living in Egypt for a couple of years like I did - you'd soon wise
up.
All this Heideggerian flim-flam about 'historical order of being' and
'intersubjective' historical order is a load of academic hogwash. We want petrol
for our cars — so we don't have to walk in the rain and we want oil to drive our
industries, so we can make things to sell that make life easy for us and
make loadsamoney while we do it.
Jud:
I think you're getting a bit overexcited and resorting to a load of
unacademic hogwash but yes, we need cheap oil to underwrite constant economic growth,
transport by land, sea and air, industrial agriculture and its fertilizers,
as well as the wide access to commodities, education and health that is
predicated on a strong global and domestic economy. Oil depletion means all this
is going to get a lot more expensive and a lot more people are going to miss
out on the benefits of modernization, and not just the Indians and Chinese
either but 'us' as well. What's your point?
Jud: You've just made it for me.
The political and economic analysis of your piece is truly impressive and is
highly readable — what mars it are the parts when you depart from your
brilliant feet-on-the-ground politico-economic dissection, and introduce the
gratuitous irrelevancies of the kooky old fart Heidegger and the Loopy Loner from
Leipzig
Malcolm
Thanks for your qualified praise but my interpretation of the current world
order is specifically derived from the Heidegger critique which you fail to
engage with beyond your own gratuitous irrelevancies you kooky old fart.
Jud:
Stop it - you're making me get a hard on! Malcolm:
Malcolm
If Mr Crifasi has truly departed then you're the only goad I have left on
this list barring one of the many lurkers speaking up, so I'm afraid you're just
going to have to lift your game a bit Jud. Come on, I dare you.
Jud:
Go ahead Malcolm - at least you show signs of life. I think somebody has
sneaked up on the others and part-embalmed them thinking they had snuffed it.
One has even written to the list concerning the philosophy of being out of
sorts! Oy! Yoy, Yoy! - God give me strength! ;-) [I use the term 'God'
metaphorically of course)
Nullius in Verba _http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm) JUD EVANS - XVANS
XPERIENTIALISM
sent unspellchecked in a hurry,
Cheers,
Jud
Nullius in Verba
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
JUD EVANS - XVANS XPERIENTIALISM
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---