In a message dated 07/06/2004 14:37:33 GMT Standard Time,
michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
spake Jud to Malcom on haranguing and boomeranging:
> its the guy who throws it — the ONTIC human being who throws the
> ONTIC boomerang or ONTIC killing stick.
To throw this back at you, Jud, a sticking point: in employing the term
"ontic" (whether you understand it correctly or not, whether you agree or
not) you imply the ontological (whether you understand it or not, whether
you agree or not), since "ontic" (the province of ta onta) means nothing
without the ontological (the province, or rather, non-province, of hen [and
also polemos, physis, logos, helios, kairanos, sophon, etc]). Rather than
think the ontic/ontological as signifying realms of things (or non-things),
Jud:
I only employed the word for purposes of rhetoric and demagoguery Michael,
in order to punch home the point to Malcolm that
the so called 'Global Powers' are in fact real human beings and the things
which exist that they employ to
impose their individuate will to power upon the greedy, self-interested,
compliant masses of world wide human consumerdom.
There may well be for you [as a metaphysicalist] an anaphoric relationship
between the 'ontic' and the 'ontological,'
but for me no such nexus exists. I only ever use the word 'ontological
adjectivally' and almost never as a [abstract] noun.
If I ever use it as a noun, I always put it in 'scare quotes' [unless I
forget] to make it obvious that for me it is meaningless.
For me only the 'ontic' exists [that which exists] [the Rhine dam for
example] all the rest of language is engaged in varied descriptions of how that
which exists exists, [what the Rhine Dam is like existentially, its function,
societal significance, economic ramifications blah, blah, blah.] in fact
'all the rest of language' is which is engaged in descriptions of how that
which exists exists in itself doesn't exist.
Bottom line? What Heidegger calls 'the ontological' is in fact nothing else
than...yes...you've guessed it...'
'all the rest of language' is which is variously engaged in descriptions of
how that which exists exists - including the way the dam exists and/or any
other entity under discussion.
In other words the so called 'ontological' is a massive compendium of
predicational description fatuously seconded into the service of a spurious
medieval-type metaphysics which is completely and utterly divorced from the real
world. As for: hen, polemos, physis, logos, helios, kairanos, sophon, etc.: they
are best placed carefully on the end of the index-finger and pushed firmly
and purposely where Paddy stuck his drachma, they are no more than
obfuscation-fodder for disputatious Heideggerians to spit, fart and fight over.
I prefer good old plain English, even if it does present difficulties for
certain Antipodeans on high, who, [constipated with Heideggerian
tape-worm-like neologisms and Greekish mistranslations] have to sullenly traipse down the
mountainside from their snuggery in the Eagle's Nest' to my humble nether
level in order to have it spelled out to them.
Michael:
I rather fancy seeing them as signifying modes of thinking things and
non-things (beings), but the difference is crucial. Science, pseudo-science
and common-s(ci)ense always consider they speak of the ontic only but that
is just plain impossible since in thinking the ontic (thinking ontically)
one is necessarily thinking (the) ontological(ly) (because beings are the
beings of being;
Jud:
You have your ontological commitments and I have mine — they differ — its
as simple as that.
The 'world of science' [i.e., scientists] does not think of that which does
not exist whilst thinking about that which does exist,
because it is impossible to think of nothing. 'Nothing' can neither exist
nor not exist, nor 'it' be thought about.
Of course — true to form — the silly old buffer H thought that he could
think about nothing, and actually wrote about it, though he called it 'Being'
rather than 'Nothing.' Thinking about it now - Nothing & Time' would have
been a better title for his garbage — or — as 'Time' doesn't exist either —
'Nothing and Nothing' would have been a much better descriptive title.
Michael:
in the same sense that appearances are the appearing of
that which appears, that the appearing of what appears is different
{momentarily at least in the unblinking eye of the not-last-man} than what
appears in such an appearance; and, just as the way or manner that a thing
is {as that thing that it is} is not identical to the thing itself, but both
the way {a thing is} and the thing that is be-wayed are always found
together, etc). One could say that ontology (as I understand it) is seeing
and bringing forward the hammering in the hammered especially where the
hammering is obscured by the hammered to the point that only the hammered is
perceived (this is called 'science' and 'pseudoscience' and both are
metaphysics that sees itself beyond or outside of metaphysics and this
constitutes the greatest danger far overreaching the minuscule one of global
terror or rising oil prices [: minuscule reply to Malcom: longer one
a-coming]). This blindness truly staggers.
Jud:
There are no such things as 'appearances' — 'appearances' do not exist.
Objects/entities are apprehended [seen] by other observing entities who have
the ability to see.…
Madonna is booked to appear on a certain date at the London Palladium.
In natural language we say: 'She is making an appearance.'
There is no 'appearance.' She is present on stage at the required time
where and when SHE IS SEEN by the members of the audience.
regards
Jud
PS - this was in fact a much longer and more detailed reply — and then my
youngest hit the AOL close-button, and I lost it all.
Drat, but never mind I made the points — points that you were already aware
of you minx .;-)
Nullius in Verba
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
JUD EVANS - XVANS XPERIENTIALISM
��Ҷ��2)�Y����i�z{l�騽����Ơzf��������mi�z{l����z����+�/��֥���֜�g������+-���J��Ȧy�������,y�0JZ����j�j[^�v����V���w/���ױ�����~�&�+-�� ���)ej��*����
michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
spake Jud to Malcom on haranguing and boomeranging:
> its the guy who throws it — the ONTIC human being who throws the
> ONTIC boomerang or ONTIC killing stick.
To throw this back at you, Jud, a sticking point: in employing the term
"ontic" (whether you understand it correctly or not, whether you agree or
not) you imply the ontological (whether you understand it or not, whether
you agree or not), since "ontic" (the province of ta onta) means nothing
without the ontological (the province, or rather, non-province, of hen [and
also polemos, physis, logos, helios, kairanos, sophon, etc]). Rather than
think the ontic/ontological as signifying realms of things (or non-things),
Jud:
I only employed the word for purposes of rhetoric and demagoguery Michael,
in order to punch home the point to Malcolm that
the so called 'Global Powers' are in fact real human beings and the things
which exist that they employ to
impose their individuate will to power upon the greedy, self-interested,
compliant masses of world wide human consumerdom.
There may well be for you [as a metaphysicalist] an anaphoric relationship
between the 'ontic' and the 'ontological,'
but for me no such nexus exists. I only ever use the word 'ontological
adjectivally' and almost never as a [abstract] noun.
If I ever use it as a noun, I always put it in 'scare quotes' [unless I
forget] to make it obvious that for me it is meaningless.
For me only the 'ontic' exists [that which exists] [the Rhine dam for
example] all the rest of language is engaged in varied descriptions of how that
which exists exists, [what the Rhine Dam is like existentially, its function,
societal significance, economic ramifications blah, blah, blah.] in fact
'all the rest of language' is which is engaged in descriptions of how that
which exists exists in itself doesn't exist.
Bottom line? What Heidegger calls 'the ontological' is in fact nothing else
than...yes...you've guessed it...'
'all the rest of language' is which is variously engaged in descriptions of
how that which exists exists - including the way the dam exists and/or any
other entity under discussion.
In other words the so called 'ontological' is a massive compendium of
predicational description fatuously seconded into the service of a spurious
medieval-type metaphysics which is completely and utterly divorced from the real
world. As for: hen, polemos, physis, logos, helios, kairanos, sophon, etc.: they
are best placed carefully on the end of the index-finger and pushed firmly
and purposely where Paddy stuck his drachma, they are no more than
obfuscation-fodder for disputatious Heideggerians to spit, fart and fight over.
I prefer good old plain English, even if it does present difficulties for
certain Antipodeans on high, who, [constipated with Heideggerian
tape-worm-like neologisms and Greekish mistranslations] have to sullenly traipse down the
mountainside from their snuggery in the Eagle's Nest' to my humble nether
level in order to have it spelled out to them.
Michael:
I rather fancy seeing them as signifying modes of thinking things and
non-things (beings), but the difference is crucial. Science, pseudo-science
and common-s(ci)ense always consider they speak of the ontic only but that
is just plain impossible since in thinking the ontic (thinking ontically)
one is necessarily thinking (the) ontological(ly) (because beings are the
beings of being;
Jud:
You have your ontological commitments and I have mine — they differ — its
as simple as that.
The 'world of science' [i.e., scientists] does not think of that which does
not exist whilst thinking about that which does exist,
because it is impossible to think of nothing. 'Nothing' can neither exist
nor not exist, nor 'it' be thought about.
Of course — true to form — the silly old buffer H thought that he could
think about nothing, and actually wrote about it, though he called it 'Being'
rather than 'Nothing.' Thinking about it now - Nothing & Time' would have
been a better title for his garbage — or — as 'Time' doesn't exist either —
'Nothing and Nothing' would have been a much better descriptive title.
Michael:
in the same sense that appearances are the appearing of
that which appears, that the appearing of what appears is different
{momentarily at least in the unblinking eye of the not-last-man} than what
appears in such an appearance; and, just as the way or manner that a thing
is {as that thing that it is} is not identical to the thing itself, but both
the way {a thing is} and the thing that is be-wayed are always found
together, etc). One could say that ontology (as I understand it) is seeing
and bringing forward the hammering in the hammered especially where the
hammering is obscured by the hammered to the point that only the hammered is
perceived (this is called 'science' and 'pseudoscience' and both are
metaphysics that sees itself beyond or outside of metaphysics and this
constitutes the greatest danger far overreaching the minuscule one of global
terror or rising oil prices [: minuscule reply to Malcom: longer one
a-coming]). This blindness truly staggers.
Jud:
There are no such things as 'appearances' — 'appearances' do not exist.
Objects/entities are apprehended [seen] by other observing entities who have
the ability to see.…
Madonna is booked to appear on a certain date at the London Palladium.
In natural language we say: 'She is making an appearance.'
There is no 'appearance.' She is present on stage at the required time
where and when SHE IS SEEN by the members of the audience.
regards
Jud
PS - this was in fact a much longer and more detailed reply — and then my
youngest hit the AOL close-button, and I lost it all.
Drat, but never mind I made the points — points that you were already aware
of you minx .;-)
Nullius in Verba
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
JUD EVANS - XVANS XPERIENTIALISM
��Ҷ��2)�Y����i�z{l�騽����Ơzf��������mi�z{l����z����+�/��֥���֜�g������+-���J��Ȧy�������,y�0JZ����j�j[^�v����V���w/���ױ�����~�&�+-�� ���)ej��*����