Malcolm, Allen,
Of course, who else? But what if someone says: language, also your speaking
for yourself, means lastly not that a subject speaks, but that words speak,
sound, through you (per-sona).
Jud:
Words are non-substantial aspects of human neurophysiological human activity
converted into sound waves for purposes of communication from one human
holism to another.
Rene:
You seem to know more than I do, Jud.
Jud:
Possible I do — but I am far too modest and polite to be presumptuous
enough to say so. ;-)
BTW the many capitals that follow are only for emphasis and are NOT abusive
or shouting.
Rene:
Yours is a subspecies of the subjective conception of language that you
share with all the others. Meanwhile everybody speaks words that he did not make.
Where do they come from, words?
Jud:
EVERYONE speaks with words that they DID make. It is physically impossible
to speak other people's words — only THEY can do that. It IS possible however
to speak the SAME words as another person — but THAT is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
thing. The trouble with that is that OTHER PEOPLE'S WORDS may not carry the
SAME MEANING as YOUR own use of the same words.
Where do words come from you ask? Words are arrangements of phonemes
[sounds] which human beings string together in order to create a combination of
sounds that convey a meaning. It started with basic verbal signs like ugh-ugh,
and developed from there. Words have different meanings however — the word
Faggot is an extremely offensive word in America, whereas in Britain it is either
a bundle of wood for a fire, or a type of fried food found in the north of
England.
Some words do not cause problems — proper names like Rene and Jud for
example — but the abstract nouns so beloved of Heidegger are the most tricky and
dangerous words that anybody can use. That is why slippery old Heidegger likes
them so much — being virtually meaningless semantically — it is well nigh
impossible to pin them down — and so transcendentalist conversation drones on
and on like a pilotless plane which has lost contact with ground-control.
Rene:
Why is everybody telling lies about words? Like that they would be
neurophysiological or instruments of communication. Trusting scientific witchcraft,
Jud?
Jud:
When people use words in philosophical conversation, they are NOT telling
lies with words — they are using words in a way that has a DIFFERENT MEANING for
them as they conceived of by others. Problems begin when people come to
believe that the ONLY CORRECT meanings of words is the meaning which is
meaningful for THEM.
Jud: [Previously]
They have no 'independence' from the human who generates them, nor can words
'choose' a human medium through which to speak.
Rene:
None of these were asserted by me. You're the only one of us two who claims
to know what language and words are. The speaking/sounding of language, i am
speaking of, is not sthing that i claim to know. It just becomes inevitable to
speak of this speaking of language, as soon as the subject that claims la
nguage, turns out to be a lie. What THEN is language? I'm merely asking a
necessary question, which can only be denied as long as the subjects keep on
believing in themselves, which they need to.
Jud:
Perhaps not asserted by you intentionally, but in your original piece Rene
you said:
(1) Words speak, sound, through you (per-sona).
(2) One-self - just the place where the lies find a place to be?
In both statements your suggestion is that words have the power to speak
[rather than the speaker] and that lies are engaged in some quest to find a
suitable mouthpiece to be used to broadcast them. I fail to see how It just
becomes inevitable to speak of this 'speaking of language,' as soon as the
subject that claims language, turns out to be a lie. A person DOES NOT claim
language — a person SPEAKS words, the compendium of which, if a person is speaking
Dutch, we call the Dutch Language, and if he is speaking English we call the
English Language. It is not the WORDS that lie or the LANGUAGE that lies —
it is the LIAR who speaks those words of the Dutch or English language who is
lying. When you say: "... as long as the subjects keep on believing in
themselves," I presume you mean by the collective noun "subjects" — the speakers of
the lies [or the truths?] What do you mean by 'believing in themselves' do
you mean:
(1) Believing that they speak the truth?
(2) Believing in themselves as worthwhile and decent people?
(3) Believing that they exist?
(4} By "subject" you refer to the subject of the sentence?
Rene:
The jokes you tell below are also not really jokes, because what once were
incidental cases of witch burning, is now regularly praxis under the banner of
the lie words. Once they got a process. Now what does not please the warlord,
is clusterbombed. Most of the time, mechanized agriculture suffices.
Jud:
I completely agree with you here Rene, but there is a form of political and
social criticism called satire, irony, parody, pasquinade, ridicule, etc.,
which I personally favour. In the great tradition of English satire one can
often be more effective as a critic of some hypocrisy or political outrage than
one can achieve in a measured logical but ultimately boring piece about the
torture and killing and ...
Every nation has a satirical magazine — even the dour Russians with their
Krokodil - it is a well known European method of political and social criticism.
Rene:
If Tudor is right -and i think he is- the -Witze will go on, as long as the
mental holocaust continues. (no joke intended)
Jud:
Tudor's doctrines, like every other transcendentalist creed NEEDS the
presence and proximity of fear and death and gloom. The Bible, the Koran, the
Talmud and every religious and transcendentalist [only God can save us now] book
in the world feasts upon death and waxes fat upon it like some grotesque
charnelhouse hound existing on scraps. Without suffering religion would die out
overnight. The mental holocaust will continue as long as religion and the belief
in the existence of abstractions continues. It will all go on until God,
Being, Fatherland, Paradise, Will to Power, and all the rest of the evil
transcendentalist claptrap is consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs.
Only then will humans be peaceful and happy creatures. :-)
Die ros' ist ohn Warum; Sie bluhet, weil sie bluhet, Sie acht nicht ihrer
selbst, Fragt nicht, ob man sie siehet.
The Rose is without "why"; She blows because she bloweth. She asks no
passer-by to heed her as he goeth.
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 ---
Of course, who else? But what if someone says: language, also your speaking
for yourself, means lastly not that a subject speaks, but that words speak,
sound, through you (per-sona).
Jud:
Words are non-substantial aspects of human neurophysiological human activity
converted into sound waves for purposes of communication from one human
holism to another.
Rene:
You seem to know more than I do, Jud.
Jud:
Possible I do — but I am far too modest and polite to be presumptuous
enough to say so. ;-)
BTW the many capitals that follow are only for emphasis and are NOT abusive
or shouting.
Rene:
Yours is a subspecies of the subjective conception of language that you
share with all the others. Meanwhile everybody speaks words that he did not make.
Where do they come from, words?
Jud:
EVERYONE speaks with words that they DID make. It is physically impossible
to speak other people's words — only THEY can do that. It IS possible however
to speak the SAME words as another person — but THAT is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
thing. The trouble with that is that OTHER PEOPLE'S WORDS may not carry the
SAME MEANING as YOUR own use of the same words.
Where do words come from you ask? Words are arrangements of phonemes
[sounds] which human beings string together in order to create a combination of
sounds that convey a meaning. It started with basic verbal signs like ugh-ugh,
and developed from there. Words have different meanings however — the word
Faggot is an extremely offensive word in America, whereas in Britain it is either
a bundle of wood for a fire, or a type of fried food found in the north of
England.
Some words do not cause problems — proper names like Rene and Jud for
example — but the abstract nouns so beloved of Heidegger are the most tricky and
dangerous words that anybody can use. That is why slippery old Heidegger likes
them so much — being virtually meaningless semantically — it is well nigh
impossible to pin them down — and so transcendentalist conversation drones on
and on like a pilotless plane which has lost contact with ground-control.
Rene:
Why is everybody telling lies about words? Like that they would be
neurophysiological or instruments of communication. Trusting scientific witchcraft,
Jud?
Jud:
When people use words in philosophical conversation, they are NOT telling
lies with words — they are using words in a way that has a DIFFERENT MEANING for
them as they conceived of by others. Problems begin when people come to
believe that the ONLY CORRECT meanings of words is the meaning which is
meaningful for THEM.
Jud: [Previously]
They have no 'independence' from the human who generates them, nor can words
'choose' a human medium through which to speak.
Rene:
None of these were asserted by me. You're the only one of us two who claims
to know what language and words are. The speaking/sounding of language, i am
speaking of, is not sthing that i claim to know. It just becomes inevitable to
speak of this speaking of language, as soon as the subject that claims la
nguage, turns out to be a lie. What THEN is language? I'm merely asking a
necessary question, which can only be denied as long as the subjects keep on
believing in themselves, which they need to.
Jud:
Perhaps not asserted by you intentionally, but in your original piece Rene
you said:
(1) Words speak, sound, through you (per-sona).
(2) One-self - just the place where the lies find a place to be?
In both statements your suggestion is that words have the power to speak
[rather than the speaker] and that lies are engaged in some quest to find a
suitable mouthpiece to be used to broadcast them. I fail to see how It just
becomes inevitable to speak of this 'speaking of language,' as soon as the
subject that claims language, turns out to be a lie. A person DOES NOT claim
language — a person SPEAKS words, the compendium of which, if a person is speaking
Dutch, we call the Dutch Language, and if he is speaking English we call the
English Language. It is not the WORDS that lie or the LANGUAGE that lies —
it is the LIAR who speaks those words of the Dutch or English language who is
lying. When you say: "... as long as the subjects keep on believing in
themselves," I presume you mean by the collective noun "subjects" — the speakers of
the lies [or the truths?] What do you mean by 'believing in themselves' do
you mean:
(1) Believing that they speak the truth?
(2) Believing in themselves as worthwhile and decent people?
(3) Believing that they exist?
(4} By "subject" you refer to the subject of the sentence?
Rene:
The jokes you tell below are also not really jokes, because what once were
incidental cases of witch burning, is now regularly praxis under the banner of
the lie words. Once they got a process. Now what does not please the warlord,
is clusterbombed. Most of the time, mechanized agriculture suffices.
Jud:
I completely agree with you here Rene, but there is a form of political and
social criticism called satire, irony, parody, pasquinade, ridicule, etc.,
which I personally favour. In the great tradition of English satire one can
often be more effective as a critic of some hypocrisy or political outrage than
one can achieve in a measured logical but ultimately boring piece about the
torture and killing and ...
Every nation has a satirical magazine — even the dour Russians with their
Krokodil - it is a well known European method of political and social criticism.
Rene:
If Tudor is right -and i think he is- the -Witze will go on, as long as the
mental holocaust continues. (no joke intended)
Jud:
Tudor's doctrines, like every other transcendentalist creed NEEDS the
presence and proximity of fear and death and gloom. The Bible, the Koran, the
Talmud and every religious and transcendentalist [only God can save us now] book
in the world feasts upon death and waxes fat upon it like some grotesque
charnelhouse hound existing on scraps. Without suffering religion would die out
overnight. The mental holocaust will continue as long as religion and the belief
in the existence of abstractions continues. It will all go on until God,
Being, Fatherland, Paradise, Will to Power, and all the rest of the evil
transcendentalist claptrap is consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs.
Only then will humans be peaceful and happy creatures. :-)
Die ros' ist ohn Warum; Sie bluhet, weil sie bluhet, Sie acht nicht ihrer
selbst, Fragt nicht, ob man sie siehet.
The Rose is without "why"; She blows because she bloweth. She asks no
passer-by to heed her as he goeth.
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 ---