-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens
GEVANS613@xxxxxxx
Verzonden: woensdag 23 juni 2004 21:35
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: GEVANS613@xxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: Will de Power and the Burning Bush
In a message dated 23/06/2004 15:18:25 GMT Standard Time,
R.B.M.deBakker@xxxxxx writes:
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:
Anthony lives on the blue-cheese side of the moon and I abide on the rocky
other and never the twain shall meet.
One thing we DO have in common [I think] is that we both think logically and
reason in an 'organised' sort of way.
However his reasoning is Jesuitical, which means he is free to drag in that
which is illogical as a redoubt of last resort [a fallback position] when his
logical mode proves ineffective. No such retreat into illogicality is
available to me — and there is no need of one — for my position is grounded in
touchy-feely OBJECTS.
Rene new:
To be precise, Jud: in these objects THEMSELVES? Or in the belief in them,
in their myth, their "logic"?
RENE:
Because [speech] 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.
Jud:
Words - language have no power of saying anything whatsoever. Only the
speaker can communicate the way his brain is thinking about certain subjects
to others [using the sound-symbols of words] can say or tell anything.
The baseball bat doesn't play with the ball — the baseball player does—
using the bat as a tool or instrument for the purpose. The keyboard and the
words I choose are not composing my e-mail I AM.
Rene new:
But it is filled with words, Jud. Not with baseball bats. Which has just
nothing to do with this latest metaphysical (re)finding of yours: 'i am'.
Rene:
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?
Jud:
Not for one moment. Words have no ABILITY
Rene new:
I agree that it is not human. Then we call it their pecularity, function,
or even: their essence. It's the most basic unnaive realism, and denying
it, misplaced human superiorism.
- Only humans have the ability to
distinguish the meaning of signs — oral and written.
Words, traffic lights, airport terminal arrival boards — the books on the
shelves of your library have no 'abilities' at all. They have no idea of the
meaning of the significations and messages that they contain and convey.
Rene new:
I agree that how they contain what is undeniably in them, is mysterious.
But 'cat' means something else than 'dog'. Independent of the speaker.
What's going on in those words? that's the question. And not merely Austin's:
what can WE do with words?
Rene:
The bizarre of that has been shown by Abaelard
to Roscelinus and his 'universale est vox', the universal is mere voice.
Jud:
Abelard was correct
you mean: Roscelinus. Abaelard is on my side: the universal 'dictum'
is not a particular thing, but Abaelard keeps on saying that it is also not
nothing, even in the sense that the particular is, without a universal, as
to itself unsayable (individuum est ineffabile).
And now Heidegger says: but in that case the individual IS not really.
(stressing the 'is', because it has disappeared already, and escapes
every time when it is asked for.
— to universalise is to produce meaningless chatter.
'America' didn't bomb Iraq certain Americans [a minority of the population]
who clean their teeth,
eat food every day and go to the John and strain did the bombing. To say
that 'America bombed Iraq' is ontologically ridiculous.
Rene new:
And "Mr. Smith bombed Iraq" meaningful and true? THAT's ridiculous.
You have to be quicker: the common or universal of general notions
no longer means reality, i agree. But then you come back with
your world (!) of individual things, while forgetting that they
have become meaningless. Itself a result of the falling astray
of the universal (the object of metaphysics). Before attacking
metaphysics, it's advisable to ask what it is (a little book by
Martin Heidegger gives a nice introduction). But because your own
ontology needs the assault on metaphysics in order to get going,
you're standing in the way of what you should do first.
Well, in fact not you, not "Jud bombs metaphysics", but "Science-
inspirated common-sense bombs metaphysics". You see the inevitable:
the poser of the question, whether the good or the bad question, is
himself posed into the question, no matter what he has to say.
A question, that, of itself, is TELLING.
rene:
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)
Jud:
There is no ME 'Being in the world' — there is only ME - the physical,
tangible ME which can be touched, heard, smelt, seen.
Rene new:
sorry Jud, it's not that i don't like you, but that is the Jud that is
dissolving in what is happening now, in this 'world'.
Being in the world is a philosophical nonsense — a leftover from olden times
when mankind was no so well educated.
Rene new:
that reminds me of a picture of the earth ball along a highroad: "They
thought it was flat". A flat lie, but everybody nods. What about that
very round royal orb that went through the entire middle ages?
But history is an easy victim, endlessly remakable. But they are not
only lies, they stink too.
There is nothing strange that a physical thinking human entity should wish
to analyse and try to define the meanings of the communicative signs with which
he communicates to other human holisms, whether those signs are
finger-signs, gesticulations, words, pictures, coloured flags,
Rene new:
Again with the help of signs and words, which themselves are PART of the
game, and not a meta-game. A meta-game is just a meta-lie.
We don't get away from being-in. All the talk about does not free one from
being-in. How to say the being-in?, that's the question.
or by flashing the study
lights on and off like Heidegger did. Heidegger was incapable of grasping the
simple things of life that most people take for granted,
Rene new:
but: that's a definition of a philosopher...
and therefore was
FORCED to retreat into the ontological fantasy of the so-called 'ontological
difference' in order to stop going completely mad. As Eliot said — "some people
cannot stand much reality" — and Heidegger was one of them. I know it annoys
you to hear me say it — but Heidegger was just an ignorant peasant —
Rene new:
..says the superior man of the city?
this is what is really disgusting.
Was Tolstoy an ignorant peasant too? And Fichte. Jesus?
Why would the social abilities of the city make one wiser? What's superior
about those abilities, when one looks around one?
brilliant at the seeding and planting of the endosperms of an already rotting
philosophical crop, and coaxing and convincing the naive with a mixture a
demagoguery and rhetoric. But at ground [Grundbegriffe] level he lacked the basic
common-sense and understanding of the world and the words with which we describe
that world. Woe to the man who lacks the intelligence to understand the word
'IS.'
Jud: [earlier]
and that lies are engaged in some quest to find a
suitable mouthpiece to be used to broadcast them.
I fail to see how
Rene:
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.
Jud:
In the bar room yes, [ordinary talk] but not on a philosophy list whilst
talking [or being interpreted] ontologically]
Jud: [earlier]
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:
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)
Jud:
You have just put your finger on the importance of semantics for mankind.
Because the Islamists believe: "America bombed Iraq/Afghanistan' they want
to kill every American they catch —
yet the American they catch might have been violently AGAINST the Bushite
madness.
But THAT is wholly beside the point. The Iraqi that is now bombed and humiliated
had nothing to do with 9/11. That *should* be clear to all those city people,
would be their sole democratic duty, but they read: "They thought it was flat",
and then they are ... just gone.
What you write, is the really worrying consequence of a confused thinking.
Lack of logic lastly results in lack of morals. That's what we saw in Anthony too.
And i'm just going on showing off, that i don't need to excuse any injustice.
Because i don't need to accuse another party. And that's because i don't need
excuses for myself.
Rene:
When truth and lie become indiscernable, it has to believe harder.
Jud:
Truth and lies do NOT EXIST - only truth tellers or liars exist.
One man's truth is another man's lie.
even to say this, truth must be something to you. What makes a man
truthful or a liar?
Rene:
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.
Jud:
PITS [people in the street] may reason this way — but responsible
philosophers should not.
Rene new:
The PITS, in order to be able to say this, should be able to go out
of themselves - which they can't on account of the ties of the lies,
as explained - maybe poorly - here by me, a philosopher.
We should [in our small way] point out to people that no such thing as
'Iraq' or 'USA'
exists — that they have been terribly conned. It's not "Iraq' that is ready
or not ready to throw a bomb — it is the
transcendentalist loony Saddam Hussein and his goons — the one that kneels
on a mat looking south west three times a day
is the ENTITY [who shits and farts] will order or not order the bombs to be
dropped or not dropped
Iraq - USA are just IDEAS which don't exist. It is the land, desert, cities,
skyscrapers and Bush and Saddam that exist.
Religion doesn't exist — just the religious. Patriotism doesn't exist —
only the patriotic.
Torture doesn't exist — only the torturers and their superiors.
I see my warnings were very relevant. Talking like you do, there's no way out.
Auto-checkmate. At bottom, you talk like the world-forgetting peasant living
in a crime-transcendental village in a country, where lying is the favourite
sport.
Rene|:
Would you now say: the subject does 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.
Jud:
It is awfully easy to get confused about these things, and although you are
very intelligent and I respect you
and you are 'well-meaning,' you are nevertheless mistaken.
If I [knowingly] tell a lie - I am a liar. If I go to the pub and if my wife
asks me where I have been and I say
to the library I am a liar. It is not the words that are lying — it is I [me]
If somebody says: 'Jud went to the pub and told Clare he had been to the
library," the subject [Jud] is a liar.
If what you say is correct and the subject [Jud] is only an "instrument' for
the lie — on whose or what's behalf is he instrumentally lying?
Human lies are not based on the model of a lingual ectoplasm that issues
forth from the innocent mouth of the medium,
nor are the owners of the brewery telling lies through my lips in order to
maintain their sales of beer.
If on the other hand I am taken in by Tony Blair's lies, and repeat them
believing them to be true — am I also a liar?
YES, but MORE - I am BOTH a LIAR and a FOOL.
Rene new:
But that's what you and everybody IS doing. They're getting away with it,
and everything just goes on. That's our democratic excusing way of ...
not-doing.
Rene:
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.
Jud:
I don't dissolve abstractions and nonexistencies - I CANNOT - because what
does not exist cannot be dissolved or resolved.
It's one lie, covering the other. Meanwhile the dissolving happens before
one's eyes. But look then, lueg!
I analyse all the meaningless cognitive vegetation away — cut the tangled
bushes and at the same time cut the crap.
Nominalists could NEVER be ants like Heidegger's helmeted hordes — because
nominalists just laugh at the childish notions of Fatherland and
the Chosen Volk. It has just struck me that for the Jews to claim that they
are the Chosen People is just as arrogant and stupid a claim as Hitler and
Heidegger's believe in the special role of the German people as chosen by
'destiny' as the major players on the world stage.
NOW you see it?? Heidegger spoke of the German-Jewish destinal
connection. The night of the crystals, where are the eyes to see?
Destiny is going to be an important word.
There ARE NO Chosen German People - there are just breathing living German
men and women, there ARE NO Chosen Jewish People - there are just breathing
living Jewish men and women.
No!!! They would not be there without that faith!!! It preserved them instead
of a home country. And also herein the Germans similar... And their
'successors': the homeless Americans.
I want to dissolve MYTHS - particularly RELIGIOUS and political myths -
We're witnessing dissolved myths. They're merely power paroles.
German and Jewish "specialness" are both dangerous and stupid myths.
They've been labeled and thrown out everywhere, first in Britain,
12th century.
Germans and Jews are on the whole hardworking intelligent people — but that
does NOT make them special or different to the rest of us.
But that should lead to the origin of myth. Also Groenbech is clear:
this modern man, that feels so superior, is a laugh compared to the
Arab, Jewish and Germanic peasants. And their myths far more real
than our lies.
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
Crocodile - it is a well known European method of political and social
criticism.
Rene:
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.
Jud:
Satire, irony, parody, pasquinade, ridicule, etc., represents a true and
serious
self-questioning — a self-questioning of one's preconceptions and one's
belief and trust in the lies of others.
It is FAR MORE powerful and effective as a weapon than the fruitless
discussions that go one here concerning
what is ontic and what is ontological. That is the reason they have
cartoonists in the newspapers every day and not
Heideggerians talking about the Rhine Dam. ;-)
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:
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)?
Jud:
I am attracted by the poetic — by the sweet nectarine [slightly mouldering]
bouquet of lost causes.
For me I enjoy Feldweg as a prose-poem — a fine bit of writing by Heidegger.
I enjoy Heidegger like I enjoy the old, yellow, jerky, scratched films taken
before the First World War.
Queen Victoria in her horsedrawn landau, the family of the Czar dancing
around oblivious of their fate to come,
Hitler with his dog in the last days, Heidegger dreaming his way down the
Feldweg his head full of the snows of yesteryear
and the fresh young limbs of his lover. The cranked handle of times camera
spasmodically turns and the old strutting images haunt us
with the sadness of what once was, and what we will one day be a part of —
the past.
AND THEN I WAKE UP and see Victoria, the Czar, Hitler, Heidegger for what
they REALLY were.
But there is no reality behind the images. That's...metaphysics.
Who is the real Alexander behind the Alexander myth, that took shape
in the following centuries? He did not even know himself. Went into
the desert to find an answer..
And we would know?
Nevertheless a stroll down the Fantasy Feldweg is OK now and again — we
suspend the faculties and the critical judgement for a Feldwegian frolic.
We all need and enjoy a poetical break now and again — as long as we don't
DARE pass it off as 'Philosophy.'
Cheers,
You missed out on the 1787 Chateau Lafite too!
I am confident that once we'll toast and drink the Lafite, Jud!
cheers in advance
rene
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 ---
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens
GEVANS613@xxxxxxx
Verzonden: woensdag 23 juni 2004 21:35
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: GEVANS613@xxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: Will de Power and the Burning Bush
In a message dated 23/06/2004 15:18:25 GMT Standard Time,
R.B.M.deBakker@xxxxxx writes:
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:
Anthony lives on the blue-cheese side of the moon and I abide on the rocky
other and never the twain shall meet.
One thing we DO have in common [I think] is that we both think logically and
reason in an 'organised' sort of way.
However his reasoning is Jesuitical, which means he is free to drag in that
which is illogical as a redoubt of last resort [a fallback position] when his
logical mode proves ineffective. No such retreat into illogicality is
available to me — and there is no need of one — for my position is grounded in
touchy-feely OBJECTS.
Rene new:
To be precise, Jud: in these objects THEMSELVES? Or in the belief in them,
in their myth, their "logic"?
RENE:
Because [speech] 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.
Jud:
Words - language have no power of saying anything whatsoever. Only the
speaker can communicate the way his brain is thinking about certain subjects
to others [using the sound-symbols of words] can say or tell anything.
The baseball bat doesn't play with the ball — the baseball player does—
using the bat as a tool or instrument for the purpose. The keyboard and the
words I choose are not composing my e-mail I AM.
Rene new:
But it is filled with words, Jud. Not with baseball bats. Which has just
nothing to do with this latest metaphysical (re)finding of yours: 'i am'.
Rene:
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?
Jud:
Not for one moment. Words have no ABILITY
Rene new:
I agree that it is not human. Then we call it their pecularity, function,
or even: their essence. It's the most basic unnaive realism, and denying
it, misplaced human superiorism.
- Only humans have the ability to
distinguish the meaning of signs — oral and written.
Words, traffic lights, airport terminal arrival boards — the books on the
shelves of your library have no 'abilities' at all. They have no idea of the
meaning of the significations and messages that they contain and convey.
Rene new:
I agree that how they contain what is undeniably in them, is mysterious.
But 'cat' means something else than 'dog'. Independent of the speaker.
What's going on in those words? that's the question. And not merely Austin's:
what can WE do with words?
Rene:
The bizarre of that has been shown by Abaelard
to Roscelinus and his 'universale est vox', the universal is mere voice.
Jud:
Abelard was correct
you mean: Roscelinus. Abaelard is on my side: the universal 'dictum'
is not a particular thing, but Abaelard keeps on saying that it is also not
nothing, even in the sense that the particular is, without a universal, as
to itself unsayable (individuum est ineffabile).
And now Heidegger says: but in that case the individual IS not really.
(stressing the 'is', because it has disappeared already, and escapes
every time when it is asked for.
— to universalise is to produce meaningless chatter.
'America' didn't bomb Iraq certain Americans [a minority of the population]
who clean their teeth,
eat food every day and go to the John and strain did the bombing. To say
that 'America bombed Iraq' is ontologically ridiculous.
Rene new:
And "Mr. Smith bombed Iraq" meaningful and true? THAT's ridiculous.
You have to be quicker: the common or universal of general notions
no longer means reality, i agree. But then you come back with
your world (!) of individual things, while forgetting that they
have become meaningless. Itself a result of the falling astray
of the universal (the object of metaphysics). Before attacking
metaphysics, it's advisable to ask what it is (a little book by
Martin Heidegger gives a nice introduction). But because your own
ontology needs the assault on metaphysics in order to get going,
you're standing in the way of what you should do first.
Well, in fact not you, not "Jud bombs metaphysics", but "Science-
inspirated common-sense bombs metaphysics". You see the inevitable:
the poser of the question, whether the good or the bad question, is
himself posed into the question, no matter what he has to say.
A question, that, of itself, is TELLING.
rene:
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)
Jud:
There is no ME 'Being in the world' — there is only ME - the physical,
tangible ME which can be touched, heard, smelt, seen.
Rene new:
sorry Jud, it's not that i don't like you, but that is the Jud that is
dissolving in what is happening now, in this 'world'.
Being in the world is a philosophical nonsense — a leftover from olden times
when mankind was no so well educated.
Rene new:
that reminds me of a picture of the earth ball along a highroad: "They
thought it was flat". A flat lie, but everybody nods. What about that
very round royal orb that went through the entire middle ages?
But history is an easy victim, endlessly remakable. But they are not
only lies, they stink too.
There is nothing strange that a physical thinking human entity should wish
to analyse and try to define the meanings of the communicative signs with which
he communicates to other human holisms, whether those signs are
finger-signs, gesticulations, words, pictures, coloured flags,
Rene new:
Again with the help of signs and words, which themselves are PART of the
game, and not a meta-game. A meta-game is just a meta-lie.
We don't get away from being-in. All the talk about does not free one from
being-in. How to say the being-in?, that's the question.
or by flashing the study
lights on and off like Heidegger did. Heidegger was incapable of grasping the
simple things of life that most people take for granted,
Rene new:
but: that's a definition of a philosopher...
and therefore was
FORCED to retreat into the ontological fantasy of the so-called 'ontological
difference' in order to stop going completely mad. As Eliot said — "some people
cannot stand much reality" — and Heidegger was one of them. I know it annoys
you to hear me say it — but Heidegger was just an ignorant peasant —
Rene new:
..says the superior man of the city?
this is what is really disgusting.
Was Tolstoy an ignorant peasant too? And Fichte. Jesus?
Why would the social abilities of the city make one wiser? What's superior
about those abilities, when one looks around one?
brilliant at the seeding and planting of the endosperms of an already rotting
philosophical crop, and coaxing and convincing the naive with a mixture a
demagoguery and rhetoric. But at ground [Grundbegriffe] level he lacked the basic
common-sense and understanding of the world and the words with which we describe
that world. Woe to the man who lacks the intelligence to understand the word
'IS.'
Jud: [earlier]
and that lies are engaged in some quest to find a
suitable mouthpiece to be used to broadcast them.
I fail to see how
Rene:
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.
Jud:
In the bar room yes, [ordinary talk] but not on a philosophy list whilst
talking [or being interpreted] ontologically]
Jud: [earlier]
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:
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)
Jud:
You have just put your finger on the importance of semantics for mankind.
Because the Islamists believe: "America bombed Iraq/Afghanistan' they want
to kill every American they catch —
yet the American they catch might have been violently AGAINST the Bushite
madness.
But THAT is wholly beside the point. The Iraqi that is now bombed and humiliated
had nothing to do with 9/11. That *should* be clear to all those city people,
would be their sole democratic duty, but they read: "They thought it was flat",
and then they are ... just gone.
What you write, is the really worrying consequence of a confused thinking.
Lack of logic lastly results in lack of morals. That's what we saw in Anthony too.
And i'm just going on showing off, that i don't need to excuse any injustice.
Because i don't need to accuse another party. And that's because i don't need
excuses for myself.
Rene:
When truth and lie become indiscernable, it has to believe harder.
Jud:
Truth and lies do NOT EXIST - only truth tellers or liars exist.
One man's truth is another man's lie.
even to say this, truth must be something to you. What makes a man
truthful or a liar?
Rene:
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.
Jud:
PITS [people in the street] may reason this way — but responsible
philosophers should not.
Rene new:
The PITS, in order to be able to say this, should be able to go out
of themselves - which they can't on account of the ties of the lies,
as explained - maybe poorly - here by me, a philosopher.
We should [in our small way] point out to people that no such thing as
'Iraq' or 'USA'
exists — that they have been terribly conned. It's not "Iraq' that is ready
or not ready to throw a bomb — it is the
transcendentalist loony Saddam Hussein and his goons — the one that kneels
on a mat looking south west three times a day
is the ENTITY [who shits and farts] will order or not order the bombs to be
dropped or not dropped
Iraq - USA are just IDEAS which don't exist. It is the land, desert, cities,
skyscrapers and Bush and Saddam that exist.
Religion doesn't exist — just the religious. Patriotism doesn't exist —
only the patriotic.
Torture doesn't exist — only the torturers and their superiors.
I see my warnings were very relevant. Talking like you do, there's no way out.
Auto-checkmate. At bottom, you talk like the world-forgetting peasant living
in a crime-transcendental village in a country, where lying is the favourite
sport.
Rene|:
Would you now say: the subject does 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.
Jud:
It is awfully easy to get confused about these things, and although you are
very intelligent and I respect you
and you are 'well-meaning,' you are nevertheless mistaken.
If I [knowingly] tell a lie - I am a liar. If I go to the pub and if my wife
asks me where I have been and I say
to the library I am a liar. It is not the words that are lying — it is I [me]
If somebody says: 'Jud went to the pub and told Clare he had been to the
library," the subject [Jud] is a liar.
If what you say is correct and the subject [Jud] is only an "instrument' for
the lie — on whose or what's behalf is he instrumentally lying?
Human lies are not based on the model of a lingual ectoplasm that issues
forth from the innocent mouth of the medium,
nor are the owners of the brewery telling lies through my lips in order to
maintain their sales of beer.
If on the other hand I am taken in by Tony Blair's lies, and repeat them
believing them to be true — am I also a liar?
YES, but MORE - I am BOTH a LIAR and a FOOL.
Rene new:
But that's what you and everybody IS doing. They're getting away with it,
and everything just goes on. That's our democratic excusing way of ...
not-doing.
Rene:
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.
Jud:
I don't dissolve abstractions and nonexistencies - I CANNOT - because what
does not exist cannot be dissolved or resolved.
It's one lie, covering the other. Meanwhile the dissolving happens before
one's eyes. But look then, lueg!
I analyse all the meaningless cognitive vegetation away — cut the tangled
bushes and at the same time cut the crap.
Nominalists could NEVER be ants like Heidegger's helmeted hordes — because
nominalists just laugh at the childish notions of Fatherland and
the Chosen Volk. It has just struck me that for the Jews to claim that they
are the Chosen People is just as arrogant and stupid a claim as Hitler and
Heidegger's believe in the special role of the German people as chosen by
'destiny' as the major players on the world stage.
NOW you see it?? Heidegger spoke of the German-Jewish destinal
connection. The night of the crystals, where are the eyes to see?
Destiny is going to be an important word.
There ARE NO Chosen German People - there are just breathing living German
men and women, there ARE NO Chosen Jewish People - there are just breathing
living Jewish men and women.
No!!! They would not be there without that faith!!! It preserved them instead
of a home country. And also herein the Germans similar... And their
'successors': the homeless Americans.
I want to dissolve MYTHS - particularly RELIGIOUS and political myths -
We're witnessing dissolved myths. They're merely power paroles.
German and Jewish "specialness" are both dangerous and stupid myths.
They've been labeled and thrown out everywhere, first in Britain,
12th century.
Germans and Jews are on the whole hardworking intelligent people — but that
does NOT make them special or different to the rest of us.
But that should lead to the origin of myth. Also Groenbech is clear:
this modern man, that feels so superior, is a laugh compared to the
Arab, Jewish and Germanic peasants. And their myths far more real
than our lies.
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
Crocodile - it is a well known European method of political and social
criticism.
Rene:
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.
Jud:
Satire, irony, parody, pasquinade, ridicule, etc., represents a true and
serious
self-questioning — a self-questioning of one's preconceptions and one's
belief and trust in the lies of others.
It is FAR MORE powerful and effective as a weapon than the fruitless
discussions that go one here concerning
what is ontic and what is ontological. That is the reason they have
cartoonists in the newspapers every day and not
Heideggerians talking about the Rhine Dam. ;-)
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:
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)?
Jud:
I am attracted by the poetic — by the sweet nectarine [slightly mouldering]
bouquet of lost causes.
For me I enjoy Feldweg as a prose-poem — a fine bit of writing by Heidegger.
I enjoy Heidegger like I enjoy the old, yellow, jerky, scratched films taken
before the First World War.
Queen Victoria in her horsedrawn landau, the family of the Czar dancing
around oblivious of their fate to come,
Hitler with his dog in the last days, Heidegger dreaming his way down the
Feldweg his head full of the snows of yesteryear
and the fresh young limbs of his lover. The cranked handle of times camera
spasmodically turns and the old strutting images haunt us
with the sadness of what once was, and what we will one day be a part of —
the past.
AND THEN I WAKE UP and see Victoria, the Czar, Hitler, Heidegger for what
they REALLY were.
But there is no reality behind the images. That's...metaphysics.
Who is the real Alexander behind the Alexander myth, that took shape
in the following centuries? He did not even know himself. Went into
the desert to find an answer..
And we would know?
Nevertheless a stroll down the Fantasy Feldweg is OK now and again — we
suspend the faculties and the critical judgement for a Feldwegian frolic.
We all need and enjoy a poetical break now and again — as long as we don't
DARE pass it off as 'Philosophy.'
Cheers,
You missed out on the 1787 Chateau Lafite too!
I am confident that once we'll toast and drink the Lafite, Jud!
cheers in advance
rene
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 ---