Jud, I know there's not much likeness between you and Anthony, so
the same thought mechanisms i think i detect in you both, and in a
lot others, incl. myself, too, are only more surprising.
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]
RENE NEW:
Because speak is like glossa or lingua bound to a speaker and his tongue,
i prefer in case of words to speak of their power of saying, or of telling.
Evidently it is on words and their ability to mean or denote sting, that
any speaker relies. Or do you think it is the tongue and its phonem-forming
activity that creates meaning? The bizarre of that has been shown by Abaelard
to Roscelinus and his 'universale est vox', the universal is mere voice.
If you want to reduce meaning to physics, you've not done enough. You also
have to show the other way: how from physics you go to semantics. It is not
enough to ridicule Heidegger's 'solution' (Bedeutsamkeit as belonging to the
world of being-in-the-world, the only world we know of)
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 NEW:
a combination of (1) and (4): a subject has to believe in what
he says, whether truth or lie. (if not, he won't live long)
When truth and lie become indiscernable, it has to believe
harder. The objects of its beliefs appear as subjects in its
propositions. Of these objects he is informed via the media.
Iraq is sthing it has heard of through television.
He hears his leader say: Iraq is ready to throw a bomb
on you, my subjects. Now the subject is threatened by the subject
of the sentence (Iraq), spoken by the subject-leader. And it can
only maintain itself amidst the fear of itself and of all the other
subjects, by accepting the proposition of the leader.
Would you now say: the subject does the the lying? I'd say he is merely
an instrument used in the lying process. And that really there are
no subjects anymore, for the same reason as that there are no more objects
for real subjects, but only subjectivity, to stamp those former subjects.
If you don't accept this subjectivity for being abstract and non-existent,
and analyze it away, you take away the last ground under the feet of the
subjects, from whence on they're nothing anymore, and that means totally
made mobile: ants. On the other hand that would even be more than Heideggerians
refusing to go into subjectivity, and turning them into ghosts.
I'm afraid that your being-existent merely means dissolving. This dissolving
is very real..
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.
Thanks yes, i had almost forgotten. Satire and irony seem to have had their
best times too. Because, like all questionworthy, all satire-worthy has
disappeared too?
True satire seems to presuppose the same lightness as the true and serious
self-questioning, that belongs to Dasein. A sort of floating.
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.
RENE NEW:
Jud, quoting Silesius and the Feldweg, is more miraculous to me than all
bikers together. Being-in-the-world-but-more-like-a-groundless-grounded-rose-
than-like-an-eradicated-worried-old-wo..human is a possibility. It just depends:
does it appeal? are there still ears to hear the possible, and not merely
exclusively physical ears to registrate (the lies)?
rene
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 ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
the same thought mechanisms i think i detect in you both, and in a
lot others, incl. myself, too, are only more surprising.
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]
RENE NEW:
Because speak is like glossa or lingua bound to a speaker and his tongue,
i prefer in case of words to speak of their power of saying, or of telling.
Evidently it is on words and their ability to mean or denote sting, that
any speaker relies. Or do you think it is the tongue and its phonem-forming
activity that creates meaning? The bizarre of that has been shown by Abaelard
to Roscelinus and his 'universale est vox', the universal is mere voice.
If you want to reduce meaning to physics, you've not done enough. You also
have to show the other way: how from physics you go to semantics. It is not
enough to ridicule Heidegger's 'solution' (Bedeutsamkeit as belonging to the
world of being-in-the-world, the only world we know of)
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 NEW:
a combination of (1) and (4): a subject has to believe in what
he says, whether truth or lie. (if not, he won't live long)
When truth and lie become indiscernable, it has to believe
harder. The objects of its beliefs appear as subjects in its
propositions. Of these objects he is informed via the media.
Iraq is sthing it has heard of through television.
He hears his leader say: Iraq is ready to throw a bomb
on you, my subjects. Now the subject is threatened by the subject
of the sentence (Iraq), spoken by the subject-leader. And it can
only maintain itself amidst the fear of itself and of all the other
subjects, by accepting the proposition of the leader.
Would you now say: the subject does the the lying? I'd say he is merely
an instrument used in the lying process. And that really there are
no subjects anymore, for the same reason as that there are no more objects
for real subjects, but only subjectivity, to stamp those former subjects.
If you don't accept this subjectivity for being abstract and non-existent,
and analyze it away, you take away the last ground under the feet of the
subjects, from whence on they're nothing anymore, and that means totally
made mobile: ants. On the other hand that would even be more than Heideggerians
refusing to go into subjectivity, and turning them into ghosts.
I'm afraid that your being-existent merely means dissolving. This dissolving
is very real..
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.
Thanks yes, i had almost forgotten. Satire and irony seem to have had their
best times too. Because, like all questionworthy, all satire-worthy has
disappeared too?
True satire seems to presuppose the same lightness as the true and serious
self-questioning, that belongs to Dasein. A sort of floating.
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.
RENE NEW:
Jud, quoting Silesius and the Feldweg, is more miraculous to me than all
bikers together. Being-in-the-world-but-more-like-a-groundless-grounded-rose-
than-like-an-eradicated-worried-old-wo..human is a possibility. It just depends:
does it appeal? are there still ears to hear the possible, and not merely
exclusively physical ears to registrate (the lies)?
rene
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 ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---