Dear Judsy,
In order to continue to try to be of some help in your education even
though we are so
far apart, I have Highlighted some key repetitions in what you said
above. Aside from
the resemblance to the Big W's sense of what constitutes reasoning:
" The reason I say
there was contact between Sadaam and Al Qaida is because there was
contact between Sadaam
and Al Qaida," this way of speaking keeps you stuck.
Jud:
Strange that you mention repetition Nunc. I mean speaking stylistically
it is probably not a good idea, though rhetorically it can be useful as long
as
one rings some neccessary changes. However tautologically speaking I have
never
understood why tautology gets such a bad press - for it has always seemed to
me
that a statement that a logical statement that is necessarily true is worth
repeating
Allen:
You see Judsy, if you want to really think about these matters,
philosophize, so to speak, you need to stop simply repeating yourself
with what seem like an endless array of variations of the same point
( a misuse of obviously remarkable powers of imagination) made
essentially at the same level of language-thought. You need
to venture more deeply and try to look into what's being said,
including what you're saying,
in order to investigate the how of it's saying, of thoughts coming to
language. It's a deliciously
complex process, which is eminently accessable to just the sort of
phenomenological investigation
I've been trying to teach you all these years
Jud:
The trouble is that I don't care to do the kind of 'philosophy' that you do
Allen,
mainly because I don't consider it to be real philosophy at all.
To me it is a jolly ragbag of poetry and flights of the imagination, and the
only
reason that I am here is that I love poetry and your wonderful flights of
the imagination.
I can join in quite happily on that level as long as somebody doesn't go
and spoil it
and suggest that it is actual philosophy. ;-)
Allen:
Furthermore, the act of thinking itself, let alone the act of turning
thought to speech (all of which, by the way, might very well be thought of
as constituting the same
act, as is the very thought of it I just spoke, and so on. . .) are
miracles of the first order, worthy of all kinds of mystical, even
divine attribution.
Jud:
Why is speech a 'miracle? There is nothing 'miraculous' about it.
Such things may have been considered amazing or wonderful occurrences
before science explained its workings
but although it may be wonderful in the sense that it is part of our
humanity and to be human is a wonderfully enjoyable experience, it is certainly not
a marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of God - because [like
Being] God is just a product of the human imagination in the same way that
transcendentalist 'philosophers' imagines Heideggerianisn [inter alia] is version
of 'philosophy.'
Allen:
The distinctive thing about what I do as a university
lecturer in philosophy is attempt to understand the process from
inside itself, without committing the sort of solipsistic,
abstractionist withdrawl , which in your youthful ignorance, you're
always accusing me of. The "work" of the million
dollar comics, wits and Jesus imitators you mention is weak and
uninteresting by comparison--literally a waste of time, despite the
big bucks.
Jud:
I agree with the last bit.
Nunc:
There were some other repetitions in your note which might be worthy
of comment, but I must run to a luncheon engagement. How about we
meet together for tea about three.
Jud:
I waited for you untl 4.15pm and even ordered a bottle of Bordeaux, a 1787
Chateau Lafite - but cancelled it when you failed to show.
The wine waiter [whose breath smelled of absinth] claimed the bottle had
belonged to Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, and one
of the most revered of its founding fathers. A philosopher, scientist and
statesmen, the aristocratic Jefferson was also an avid oenophile. When he was
ambassador to France he spent much of his time visiting the vineyards of
Bordeaux and Burgundy, buying wine for his own collection and on behalf of his
friends back home. He is also associated with two other bottles of very pricey
wine, a 1775 Sherry ($43,500) and the most expensive white wine ever sold, a
1787 Chateau d'Yquem ($56,588).
I ignored those, though had you showed up I would have doubtless pushed the
boat out once I had got the taste.
How and why your university restaurant has such an expensive wine cellar I
have no idea? Is it a reflection of the salary they pay you nowadays in
academia?
Of course none of these wines are actually drinkable now; ;-( it is
unusual for even the best Bordeaux to last more than 50 years, and 200 years is
beyond any wine's limit.
Your affectionate nephew,
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 ---