Quoting GEVANS613@xxxxxxx:
>
> 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.'
What a set-up! Plato could do no better for his old teacher Socrates.
Why is speech a miracle? Because seeing it as such makes philosophy. You
missed the beginning of philosophy, Judsy. Again! I don't know how many more
chances I am going to be able to give you. Of course, the miracle is also most
ordinary. That's the miracle of it. "Nature loves to hide." "Truth as a-
letheia, unconcealment." In philosophy, the miracle is known by its effect on
the philosopher: astonishment!
A "wonderfully enjoyable experience"? Of course. "A marvelous event
manifesting a supernatural act of God?" Possibly. I actually went quite far
thinking of it that way once."God a product of the imagination"? Again, of
course, and also very much worthy of thought. But then, before long, you're
back to the "miracle" of the imagination--its capacity to conceive of such
gods, giving them a poetic body equal to the beautious flow of the Ister, and
on and on.
"
> 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.
Poor Judsy, Continually falling out of wakefulness. Of course I was there. The
waiter's smell was the last thing you remarked about
before you had one of your fits. Here, for your recollection and the
entertainment of passersby is the conversation we had just before you lost
consciousness:
>>
>>Allen:
>>Enter "rhetoric." Through the rhetorical possibilities available to
>>say one's saying this way or that one attempts to hide one's
>>"subjectivity" by saying one's saying as
>>if it were not just one's way of saying, but the saying of what is.
>>Jud:
>>One doesn't 'say ones saying' - one speaks certain chosen words from one's
>>vocabulary in order to convey meaning,
>>or in the way Heidegger practiced: one speaks certain chosen words
>>from one's vocabulary in order to convey
>>fancy-sounding meaninglessness. Rhetoric is a verbal weapon used by
>>people using language effectively to please or persuade,
>>in the manner of Heidegger in his high flown style; mistranslations
>>of the Greek, vomit-inducing neologisms, excessive use of verbal
>>ornamentation and confused and empty style. Restricted to plain
>>speaking and a straight forward unambiguous format,
>>Heideggerianism would fizzle-out overnight as utterly laughable and
>>comedic on par with the Rowan and Martin Laugh-in.
As would analytical philosophy "expanded" to meet the demands of the
poetic speaking which obtains
in Heideggerian phenomenology. This is an easy one Judsy. Every
kind of speech has a rhetoric
which is appropriate to it, a way of saying things that (you're right
about this one) gives what you say persuasive force. It's just that
to certain philosophical elitists blinded by a self induced literal ,
linear certainty (relatively easy to come by), their own rhetoric
becomes invisible. This is the invisibility that goes with
presumptive power. You ask a long standing American W.A.S.P. about
his ethnicity, he replies that he has no ethnicity, no ethnic
background from whence he comes. The invisibility of whiteness,
maleness, etc.
>>
>>Allen:
>>This move requires conventions of proof, method. . .SCIENCE.
>>Philosophy, Heidegger claims, is unique amongst the
>>human practices "invented" to deal with this problem of subjectivity, in
>>that it proves nothing,
>>and is therefore useless to any endeavor outside of itself because it says
>>what it says with the full
>>recognition that its saying is no more than a basic movement of factical
>>life.
>>
>>Jud:
>>Here for once he speaks the truth - that is if he speaks of
>>transcendentalist 'philosophy.' [cough!]
>>Analytical philosophy [or better still nominalistic philosophy] is another
>>matter, for it deals with that which exists in the world and not with the
>>human 'subjective' subject and his 'problems' of 'angst' and fear
>>of the world,
>>and artificially constructed 'Daseins' or 'Being in the world',
Oh Judsy. Your innocence and naivete are so charmingly transparent.
By simply looking at your
language in the above sentence (Now really look at it, please. . .
for your old Nunc) you speak
of your philosophy as "dealing with that which exists in the world. .
. " You said it: Philosophizing (a kind of observing, however you
see it) must necessarily DEAL WITH that which exists. This dealing
-WITH ( Heidegger calls this Umgang in der Welt) of necessity
involves Dasein as a subject-in-the-world, and so the "how" of
subjectivity, that is, of having a world, which having, is expressed
SUBJECTIVELY, is the most distinctive thing about you dear boy, and
thereby merits our closest philosophical attention.
>> and does not
>>wail that "only a God can save us now" and other weakling rubbish suitable
>>for rusk-nibblers, but deals with practical problems concerning
>>how the world
>>really is, and what exists and what doesn't. The subjectivity and
>>the moaning
>> bit the analyticals leave to the subjectivists and Heideggerian [only a God
>>can save us now] Futilitarians.
>>
>>Allen:
>>But as the basic movement of factical life that it is, the saying
>>of philosophy insists on continually throwing its own subjectivity into
>>question, by way of
>>moving towards its essential interchangeability with all other
>>subjectivities. This questioning guarentees
>>incompleteness because of the impossibility of reaching this
>>interchangability in and through
>>one's saying, even though it( the interchangeability of
>>subjectivities) is "essential" to the thinking/existential
>>analytic of Dasein.
>>
>>Jud:
>>As long as it is plain that this philosophical doctrine is the
>>Heideggerian one all that you say is true.
>>Heideggerianism IS interchangeable with most other mental
>>pathologies and personality problems such as
>>feeling of indefinable anguish, death, insecurity, fear of the
>>outside world, helplessness [Only a God can save us], etc. In fact
>>strictly from a psychological point of view it is probably true to
>>characterise Heideggerianism as
>>a mild form of mental disturbance and neurophysical imbalance.
Unworthy of you, and therefore unworthy of comment.
>>Allen:
>>I think I managed to keep the ambiguity essential, but whether I
>>did or not ...
>>
>>Jud:
>>Like all competent Heideggerians your skilful handling of ambiguity, rather
>>than spoiling everything with plain unambiguity of speech is a
>>credit to you.
>>You would have made a wonderful politician, lawyer or psychologist Nunc.
>>When I first came to Heideggerianism I was contemptuous of the equivocation,
>>evasion and doublespeak, but now I enjoy it - it's like playing
>>word-games or
>>philosophical charades. One grows to like it - as it is a form of
>>conceptual
>>crosswords or semantic scrabble. The bottom line. There is NO WAY that
>>Heideggerianism could be called 'Philosophy,' - not in a month of
>>sundays - but
>>with further familiarity it can become amusing and enjoyable as a way of
>>talking about the world of the imagination [rather than the REAL
>>world] as one
>>takes it all with a fistful of salt that is... and everyone has to
>>earn a crust.
>>
>
>---
Well, in a month of Sundays, I don't really claim a whole lot more
for philosophy, except
that it be called philosophy. About the salt, though, I've been told
to substantially lower my salt intake,
and I'm afraid I'm allergic to bread (wheat, gluten to be exact), so
the world as I have it, imagination
and all, is the real world. I don't really have much choice in the matter.
As always, your
Nunc
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
> 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.'
What a set-up! Plato could do no better for his old teacher Socrates.
Why is speech a miracle? Because seeing it as such makes philosophy. You
missed the beginning of philosophy, Judsy. Again! I don't know how many more
chances I am going to be able to give you. Of course, the miracle is also most
ordinary. That's the miracle of it. "Nature loves to hide." "Truth as a-
letheia, unconcealment." In philosophy, the miracle is known by its effect on
the philosopher: astonishment!
A "wonderfully enjoyable experience"? Of course. "A marvelous event
manifesting a supernatural act of God?" Possibly. I actually went quite far
thinking of it that way once."God a product of the imagination"? Again, of
course, and also very much worthy of thought. But then, before long, you're
back to the "miracle" of the imagination--its capacity to conceive of such
gods, giving them a poetic body equal to the beautious flow of the Ister, and
on and on.
"
> 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.
Poor Judsy, Continually falling out of wakefulness. Of course I was there. The
waiter's smell was the last thing you remarked about
before you had one of your fits. Here, for your recollection and the
entertainment of passersby is the conversation we had just before you lost
consciousness:
>>
>>Allen:
>>Enter "rhetoric." Through the rhetorical possibilities available to
>>say one's saying this way or that one attempts to hide one's
>>"subjectivity" by saying one's saying as
>>if it were not just one's way of saying, but the saying of what is.
>>Jud:
>>One doesn't 'say ones saying' - one speaks certain chosen words from one's
>>vocabulary in order to convey meaning,
>>or in the way Heidegger practiced: one speaks certain chosen words
>>from one's vocabulary in order to convey
>>fancy-sounding meaninglessness. Rhetoric is a verbal weapon used by
>>people using language effectively to please or persuade,
>>in the manner of Heidegger in his high flown style; mistranslations
>>of the Greek, vomit-inducing neologisms, excessive use of verbal
>>ornamentation and confused and empty style. Restricted to plain
>>speaking and a straight forward unambiguous format,
>>Heideggerianism would fizzle-out overnight as utterly laughable and
>>comedic on par with the Rowan and Martin Laugh-in.
As would analytical philosophy "expanded" to meet the demands of the
poetic speaking which obtains
in Heideggerian phenomenology. This is an easy one Judsy. Every
kind of speech has a rhetoric
which is appropriate to it, a way of saying things that (you're right
about this one) gives what you say persuasive force. It's just that
to certain philosophical elitists blinded by a self induced literal ,
linear certainty (relatively easy to come by), their own rhetoric
becomes invisible. This is the invisibility that goes with
presumptive power. You ask a long standing American W.A.S.P. about
his ethnicity, he replies that he has no ethnicity, no ethnic
background from whence he comes. The invisibility of whiteness,
maleness, etc.
>>
>>Allen:
>>This move requires conventions of proof, method. . .SCIENCE.
>>Philosophy, Heidegger claims, is unique amongst the
>>human practices "invented" to deal with this problem of subjectivity, in
>>that it proves nothing,
>>and is therefore useless to any endeavor outside of itself because it says
>>what it says with the full
>>recognition that its saying is no more than a basic movement of factical
>>life.
>>
>>Jud:
>>Here for once he speaks the truth - that is if he speaks of
>>transcendentalist 'philosophy.' [cough!]
>>Analytical philosophy [or better still nominalistic philosophy] is another
>>matter, for it deals with that which exists in the world and not with the
>>human 'subjective' subject and his 'problems' of 'angst' and fear
>>of the world,
>>and artificially constructed 'Daseins' or 'Being in the world',
Oh Judsy. Your innocence and naivete are so charmingly transparent.
By simply looking at your
language in the above sentence (Now really look at it, please. . .
for your old Nunc) you speak
of your philosophy as "dealing with that which exists in the world. .
. " You said it: Philosophizing (a kind of observing, however you
see it) must necessarily DEAL WITH that which exists. This dealing
-WITH ( Heidegger calls this Umgang in der Welt) of necessity
involves Dasein as a subject-in-the-world, and so the "how" of
subjectivity, that is, of having a world, which having, is expressed
SUBJECTIVELY, is the most distinctive thing about you dear boy, and
thereby merits our closest philosophical attention.
>> and does not
>>wail that "only a God can save us now" and other weakling rubbish suitable
>>for rusk-nibblers, but deals with practical problems concerning
>>how the world
>>really is, and what exists and what doesn't. The subjectivity and
>>the moaning
>> bit the analyticals leave to the subjectivists and Heideggerian [only a God
>>can save us now] Futilitarians.
>>
>>Allen:
>>But as the basic movement of factical life that it is, the saying
>>of philosophy insists on continually throwing its own subjectivity into
>>question, by way of
>>moving towards its essential interchangeability with all other
>>subjectivities. This questioning guarentees
>>incompleteness because of the impossibility of reaching this
>>interchangability in and through
>>one's saying, even though it( the interchangeability of
>>subjectivities) is "essential" to the thinking/existential
>>analytic of Dasein.
>>
>>Jud:
>>As long as it is plain that this philosophical doctrine is the
>>Heideggerian one all that you say is true.
>>Heideggerianism IS interchangeable with most other mental
>>pathologies and personality problems such as
>>feeling of indefinable anguish, death, insecurity, fear of the
>>outside world, helplessness [Only a God can save us], etc. In fact
>>strictly from a psychological point of view it is probably true to
>>characterise Heideggerianism as
>>a mild form of mental disturbance and neurophysical imbalance.
Unworthy of you, and therefore unworthy of comment.
>>Allen:
>>I think I managed to keep the ambiguity essential, but whether I
>>did or not ...
>>
>>Jud:
>>Like all competent Heideggerians your skilful handling of ambiguity, rather
>>than spoiling everything with plain unambiguity of speech is a
>>credit to you.
>>You would have made a wonderful politician, lawyer or psychologist Nunc.
>>When I first came to Heideggerianism I was contemptuous of the equivocation,
>>evasion and doublespeak, but now I enjoy it - it's like playing
>>word-games or
>>philosophical charades. One grows to like it - as it is a form of
>>conceptual
>>crosswords or semantic scrabble. The bottom line. There is NO WAY that
>>Heideggerianism could be called 'Philosophy,' - not in a month of
>>sundays - but
>>with further familiarity it can become amusing and enjoyable as a way of
>>talking about the world of the imagination [rather than the REAL
>>world] as one
>>takes it all with a fistful of salt that is... and everyone has to
>>earn a crust.
>>
>
>---
Well, in a month of Sundays, I don't really claim a whole lot more
for philosophy, except
that it be called philosophy. About the salt, though, I've been told
to substantially lower my salt intake,
and I'm afraid I'm allergic to bread (wheat, gluten to be exact), so
the world as I have it, imagination
and all, is the real world. I don't really have much choice in the matter.
As always, your
Nunc
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---