In a message dated 18/07/2004 11:35:39 GMT Standard Time, tgeorgescu@xxxxxxx
writes:
> Words describing the horrific incidents which religion gave birth to,
> like the holocaust, the crusades, the Gulags, the Inca and Aztec
> religious attrocities, the inquisition, the religious divide in
> Palestine/Israel, Northern Ireland, Indonesia, India and about ever
> damn country in the world except the Vatican State maybe? etc., [one
> could go on ALL DAY] These infamous words ["God" and "Being"] should
> NEVER be forgotten or expunged from our dictionaries and encyclopaedias.
People (wicked beings) use any pretext to kill and make war with each other.
Bereft of religion, they would find every time a new pretext to do it, be it
in the name of public interest, money, oil, utility, human rights (sic!) of
mere whim of politicians, who would have then to seek new ways to getting it
done (with legitimateness).
Jud:
You miss the point Tudor - these people - these "wicked beings" are
RELIGIOUS AND/OR TRANSCENDENTALIST beings
who errect idealistic fantasies such as the state, God, Being, the Volk,
ostensively for the betterment of humanity. What ACTULLY happens is that
in the implementation of these doctrines human being suffer rather than
benifit. For all the religious, politial, transcendentalist and politivcal
crazies the end justifies the means.
Tudor:
People who kill each other in the name of God, they are simply ignoring
God's commandments. Crusaders were unfaithful to God, because if Christian
worship God here and Muslims worship God there, then it is no problem. The
people who used God as pretext to make war were just traitors of God
(provided God Himself did not advance war in that particular case as the
least of some evils).
Jud:
All the religious books include commandments to kill people under certain
circumstances. Often in battle [I will use WW1 and WW2 as examples] the British
priest would be in one trence blessing the British soldiers and telling them
that "God" was on their side, and a few hundred yards away the German
priest would be blessing the German soldiers and telling them that "God" was on
their side. The priests were wicked morons.
> (2) The word "thing" is a handy little communicational tool for use when
> a less detailed descriptive reference is made to an object in discussion.
> For example rather than repeat: "Bring me the tempered steel, semi-
> eliptical, longitudinal, asymmetrical leaf-spring!" it is far easier for
> an engineer to shout: "Bring the thing here." This temporary denotative
> signification is fine and dandy, for in this case the entity referenced
> by the word is mutually understood and agreed following from being
> employed antecedally.
Words are not temporary, but they are enduring. So, denying that the word
"thing" means the same at different times, it is annulling this word.
Jud:
Again you misread my text. I infer that it is perfectly right and correct to
employ the word "thing" if the nature of the object is antecedally known to
both parties in a conversation.
For example, if I type: " This e-mail is getting to be a bit long I must
get the thing finished," we are both aware that the word "thing" refers to the
e-mail.
I am nmaking allowances for the fact that English is not your native
language, so I am not overly critiscising you for not picking this up.
Tudor:
Well, if you being with removing the word "thing", then, if you are
consequent, you will remove the words "steel", "asymmetrical", etc., till
you are left unable to speak because you have no words at all.
Jud:
I keep on stating on this list that nominalists have NO AGENDA for
"removing" any words AT ALL from the language. Nominalism is about MEANING
[semantics]. I keep on saying this to Michael P but he either doesn't understand what
I am saying or he deliberately chooses to ignore my very clear statement on
the issue for his own rhetorical purposes.
> (3) As for the word "awareness" it is a perfectly good word - nothing
> wrong with it at all as long as it is fully understood the ontologically
> IT DOESN'T EXIST and that only that which is aware exists. The same goes
> for any of these "-ness, -ity, -hood, abstractions - as long as our
> schools start to teach the kids that those words only describe a state of
> modality of some entity or entities that exist - then everything will be
> fine and the many-headed hydra of destructive transcendentalism will be
> kept at bay.
Well, to be sure, ALL words are abstractions! (I think you never ate the
word "apple"...)
Jud:
You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT [a breakthrough in understanding at last?]
ALL words are abstractions but SOME of them point [denote] REAL ACTUAL
entities - whilst others do not.
The thing that cripples the minds of "thinkers" like Heidegger and Husserl
and that ilk is that they confuse the denotata [the words that point to actual
existing objects or forces] with the spurious abstractions [most often
gerunds] which does not refer to any entitic object at all.
> Tudor:
> Suddenly, one of them has a vision of God.
>
> Jud:
> In such a society a team of mental health medics would be summoned
> immediately. No citizen would be abandoned to find his own way into
> the legion of the religiously damaged or end up a gutter-bum.
> All physiological and psychological problems such as the religious
> hysteria you illustrate would receive instant hospitalisation.
>
> Tudor:
> He tells them: "I saw God, He exists!"
>
> Jud:
> His nurses would smile indulgently and ask him what drugs he had been
> taking.
Nietzsche's argument with the (happy and eye-blinking) last man is still not
refuted in respect to such a problem.
Jud:
He was taking drugs for his syphilus - they were probably affecting his
brain by this time.
Besides, if one thinks that religion is mere mental illness, exploding bombs
during the Holy Mass is the logical step "ahead". Or, equally well, the
Lenin-Stalin method of dealing with Christians follows in that order.
Jud:
They are far more likely to run in SOMEBODY ELSES church or mosque or temple
and explode bombs there.
> Could they disprove that God exists?
>
> Jud:
> NOBODY can disprove the non-existence of GOD or anything else to anybody
> -
> because neither "existence" or "non-existence exist.
You contradict yourself, because if (the fact of) existing and existence do
not exist, then how could one say "neither ... or ... EXIST"?
Jud: Because I Jud Evans exists and you Tudor exist - but our existences do
not exist.
Only that which exists exists - Jud and Tudor are a part of that that.
> They could demand that God be produced immediately as evidence for the
> claim. If no such evidence were forthcoming then the claim would be
> false. {as it is with the "Being" fantasy]
Ok, I go to the market and I want to convince people that electrons exist
(or that they don't exist). Am I able to show them an electron? Am I able to
show there is no such thing as an electron? Or senses do not help in respect
to such a problem?
Jud:
You could show them a TV screen and point out the electrons bombarding the
screen after being fired from a gun [electron gun] If you do not believe
electrons exist what do you think is driving your PC as you read my writing on
the screen?
> Tudor:
> So, in order for them to disprove his vision, they all or some of
> them have to learn the new word, "God", employ it and begin anew with
> the questions pertaining to metaphysics.
>
> Jud:
> No, they would be quite aware of the meaning and import of the word and
> take steps accordingly. In the odd case [and I am only going along with
> this charade to amuse myself] where a person had never herald the word
> "God" before, he would soon realise what the patient was suffering from
> when the poor man went into greater detail as to the so-called nature of
> this "God" He may well demand evidence as to the fact that this "God"
> existed - and then again he may not, but rather silently leave the room,
> close the door quietly, and hope that when he did his ward-rounds later
> the patient might have recovered a little after a good rest.
Tudor:
In fact, there is no way out of metaphysics (i.e. thinking by employing
abstractions). All one can do is metaphysically deny he does metaphysics,
which is a self-refuting argument.
Jud:
NOTHING - NOTHING at all in the universe is above or below physical entities
and forces.
Forces are just mereological clusters of entities in certain "streamed"
configurations.
Metaphysics doesn't exist. What exists is our flesh and blood brains acting
[existing in everchanging modalities.] Sometimes we act [think] about
entities that actually exist in the world { I look at my pencil on my desk and
think about it] sometimes we think about things which don't exist [how the
ancient Egyptions bored holes in stone for example] but in both cases the
"thinking" doesn't exist - only the thinking brain exists.
Tudor:
Metaphysics is just employing abstractions in thinking on real life
problems, e.g. discussing social problems.
Jud:
There ARE NO "real life problems" there are only problematical entities -
problem people - problem cars which refuse to start etc. - human and
non-human objects which can make life difficult or easy for the human entity
involved. All these "problems" are activities of the human holism and the holisms
with which he/she shares the world. When we discuss "social problems" we are
discussing Actual living human beings - not "problems."
Tudor:
And, if one's metaphysical
intelligence is not high enough, then the solutions he furthers in respect
to social problems will be inadequate, producing bigger problems than before
they got applied.
Jud:
There is no such thing as "Metaphysical intelligence." One can be trained
in certain areas in order to address certain problematical human beings or
problematical groups of human beings.
Tudor:
Windows update patches work for PC's, but political patches are not the way
to govern a society.
Jud:
Oh that we could just download a patch that would erase Bush and Blair.
> Tudor:
> In fact, they would be not more advanced, but more retarded. All their
> devices which ensured for their high living standard were in fact turning
> them into metaphysical retards.
>
> Jud:
> "Metaphysics" would not be an issue. By the time you mention [surely you
> mean the year 50,000 - not 5000?] metaphysics will be just as much a part
> of history as "God" or "Being." and will be on par with the crudities
> of the New Guinean natives and their Gods with no heads that glowed at
> the neck.
Tudor
Primitives are no match for the evilness of modern human. I think Zygmunt
Bauman showed well enough that holocausts happen because of metaphysical
wannabe-ism (they are the effects of the metaphysics of subjectivity). Of
course the metaphysics of subjectivity is not the only cause of them,
because another reason for it is that (some) people often think that if you
can screw others, you should not miss the opportunity, regardless of how
inhumane and horrendous your deed is.
Jud:
You provide a good description of Heidegger here - an unscrupulous kittle
man on the make.
Tudor:
What I plead for is becoming aware of our social nature, and about the
(individual and/or collective) peculiarities of this strange being: the
human.
JUd:
I am with you there Tudor - good luck to you in your endevours.
Cheers,
Jud
--- 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 ---
writes:
> Words describing the horrific incidents which religion gave birth to,
> like the holocaust, the crusades, the Gulags, the Inca and Aztec
> religious attrocities, the inquisition, the religious divide in
> Palestine/Israel, Northern Ireland, Indonesia, India and about ever
> damn country in the world except the Vatican State maybe? etc., [one
> could go on ALL DAY] These infamous words ["God" and "Being"] should
> NEVER be forgotten or expunged from our dictionaries and encyclopaedias.
People (wicked beings) use any pretext to kill and make war with each other.
Bereft of religion, they would find every time a new pretext to do it, be it
in the name of public interest, money, oil, utility, human rights (sic!) of
mere whim of politicians, who would have then to seek new ways to getting it
done (with legitimateness).
Jud:
You miss the point Tudor - these people - these "wicked beings" are
RELIGIOUS AND/OR TRANSCENDENTALIST beings
who errect idealistic fantasies such as the state, God, Being, the Volk,
ostensively for the betterment of humanity. What ACTULLY happens is that
in the implementation of these doctrines human being suffer rather than
benifit. For all the religious, politial, transcendentalist and politivcal
crazies the end justifies the means.
Tudor:
People who kill each other in the name of God, they are simply ignoring
God's commandments. Crusaders were unfaithful to God, because if Christian
worship God here and Muslims worship God there, then it is no problem. The
people who used God as pretext to make war were just traitors of God
(provided God Himself did not advance war in that particular case as the
least of some evils).
Jud:
All the religious books include commandments to kill people under certain
circumstances. Often in battle [I will use WW1 and WW2 as examples] the British
priest would be in one trence blessing the British soldiers and telling them
that "God" was on their side, and a few hundred yards away the German
priest would be blessing the German soldiers and telling them that "God" was on
their side. The priests were wicked morons.
> (2) The word "thing" is a handy little communicational tool for use when
> a less detailed descriptive reference is made to an object in discussion.
> For example rather than repeat: "Bring me the tempered steel, semi-
> eliptical, longitudinal, asymmetrical leaf-spring!" it is far easier for
> an engineer to shout: "Bring the thing here." This temporary denotative
> signification is fine and dandy, for in this case the entity referenced
> by the word is mutually understood and agreed following from being
> employed antecedally.
Words are not temporary, but they are enduring. So, denying that the word
"thing" means the same at different times, it is annulling this word.
Jud:
Again you misread my text. I infer that it is perfectly right and correct to
employ the word "thing" if the nature of the object is antecedally known to
both parties in a conversation.
For example, if I type: " This e-mail is getting to be a bit long I must
get the thing finished," we are both aware that the word "thing" refers to the
e-mail.
I am nmaking allowances for the fact that English is not your native
language, so I am not overly critiscising you for not picking this up.
Tudor:
Well, if you being with removing the word "thing", then, if you are
consequent, you will remove the words "steel", "asymmetrical", etc., till
you are left unable to speak because you have no words at all.
Jud:
I keep on stating on this list that nominalists have NO AGENDA for
"removing" any words AT ALL from the language. Nominalism is about MEANING
[semantics]. I keep on saying this to Michael P but he either doesn't understand what
I am saying or he deliberately chooses to ignore my very clear statement on
the issue for his own rhetorical purposes.
> (3) As for the word "awareness" it is a perfectly good word - nothing
> wrong with it at all as long as it is fully understood the ontologically
> IT DOESN'T EXIST and that only that which is aware exists. The same goes
> for any of these "-ness, -ity, -hood, abstractions - as long as our
> schools start to teach the kids that those words only describe a state of
> modality of some entity or entities that exist - then everything will be
> fine and the many-headed hydra of destructive transcendentalism will be
> kept at bay.
Well, to be sure, ALL words are abstractions! (I think you never ate the
word "apple"...)
Jud:
You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT [a breakthrough in understanding at last?]
ALL words are abstractions but SOME of them point [denote] REAL ACTUAL
entities - whilst others do not.
The thing that cripples the minds of "thinkers" like Heidegger and Husserl
and that ilk is that they confuse the denotata [the words that point to actual
existing objects or forces] with the spurious abstractions [most often
gerunds] which does not refer to any entitic object at all.
> Tudor:
> Suddenly, one of them has a vision of God.
>
> Jud:
> In such a society a team of mental health medics would be summoned
> immediately. No citizen would be abandoned to find his own way into
> the legion of the religiously damaged or end up a gutter-bum.
> All physiological and psychological problems such as the religious
> hysteria you illustrate would receive instant hospitalisation.
>
> Tudor:
> He tells them: "I saw God, He exists!"
>
> Jud:
> His nurses would smile indulgently and ask him what drugs he had been
> taking.
Nietzsche's argument with the (happy and eye-blinking) last man is still not
refuted in respect to such a problem.
Jud:
He was taking drugs for his syphilus - they were probably affecting his
brain by this time.
Besides, if one thinks that religion is mere mental illness, exploding bombs
during the Holy Mass is the logical step "ahead". Or, equally well, the
Lenin-Stalin method of dealing with Christians follows in that order.
Jud:
They are far more likely to run in SOMEBODY ELSES church or mosque or temple
and explode bombs there.
> Could they disprove that God exists?
>
> Jud:
> NOBODY can disprove the non-existence of GOD or anything else to anybody
> -
> because neither "existence" or "non-existence exist.
You contradict yourself, because if (the fact of) existing and existence do
not exist, then how could one say "neither ... or ... EXIST"?
Jud: Because I Jud Evans exists and you Tudor exist - but our existences do
not exist.
Only that which exists exists - Jud and Tudor are a part of that that.
> They could demand that God be produced immediately as evidence for the
> claim. If no such evidence were forthcoming then the claim would be
> false. {as it is with the "Being" fantasy]
Ok, I go to the market and I want to convince people that electrons exist
(or that they don't exist). Am I able to show them an electron? Am I able to
show there is no such thing as an electron? Or senses do not help in respect
to such a problem?
Jud:
You could show them a TV screen and point out the electrons bombarding the
screen after being fired from a gun [electron gun] If you do not believe
electrons exist what do you think is driving your PC as you read my writing on
the screen?
> Tudor:
> So, in order for them to disprove his vision, they all or some of
> them have to learn the new word, "God", employ it and begin anew with
> the questions pertaining to metaphysics.
>
> Jud:
> No, they would be quite aware of the meaning and import of the word and
> take steps accordingly. In the odd case [and I am only going along with
> this charade to amuse myself] where a person had never herald the word
> "God" before, he would soon realise what the patient was suffering from
> when the poor man went into greater detail as to the so-called nature of
> this "God" He may well demand evidence as to the fact that this "God"
> existed - and then again he may not, but rather silently leave the room,
> close the door quietly, and hope that when he did his ward-rounds later
> the patient might have recovered a little after a good rest.
Tudor:
In fact, there is no way out of metaphysics (i.e. thinking by employing
abstractions). All one can do is metaphysically deny he does metaphysics,
which is a self-refuting argument.
Jud:
NOTHING - NOTHING at all in the universe is above or below physical entities
and forces.
Forces are just mereological clusters of entities in certain "streamed"
configurations.
Metaphysics doesn't exist. What exists is our flesh and blood brains acting
[existing in everchanging modalities.] Sometimes we act [think] about
entities that actually exist in the world { I look at my pencil on my desk and
think about it] sometimes we think about things which don't exist [how the
ancient Egyptions bored holes in stone for example] but in both cases the
"thinking" doesn't exist - only the thinking brain exists.
Tudor:
Metaphysics is just employing abstractions in thinking on real life
problems, e.g. discussing social problems.
Jud:
There ARE NO "real life problems" there are only problematical entities -
problem people - problem cars which refuse to start etc. - human and
non-human objects which can make life difficult or easy for the human entity
involved. All these "problems" are activities of the human holism and the holisms
with which he/she shares the world. When we discuss "social problems" we are
discussing Actual living human beings - not "problems."
Tudor:
And, if one's metaphysical
intelligence is not high enough, then the solutions he furthers in respect
to social problems will be inadequate, producing bigger problems than before
they got applied.
Jud:
There is no such thing as "Metaphysical intelligence." One can be trained
in certain areas in order to address certain problematical human beings or
problematical groups of human beings.
Tudor:
Windows update patches work for PC's, but political patches are not the way
to govern a society.
Jud:
Oh that we could just download a patch that would erase Bush and Blair.
> Tudor:
> In fact, they would be not more advanced, but more retarded. All their
> devices which ensured for their high living standard were in fact turning
> them into metaphysical retards.
>
> Jud:
> "Metaphysics" would not be an issue. By the time you mention [surely you
> mean the year 50,000 - not 5000?] metaphysics will be just as much a part
> of history as "God" or "Being." and will be on par with the crudities
> of the New Guinean natives and their Gods with no heads that glowed at
> the neck.
Tudor
Primitives are no match for the evilness of modern human. I think Zygmunt
Bauman showed well enough that holocausts happen because of metaphysical
wannabe-ism (they are the effects of the metaphysics of subjectivity). Of
course the metaphysics of subjectivity is not the only cause of them,
because another reason for it is that (some) people often think that if you
can screw others, you should not miss the opportunity, regardless of how
inhumane and horrendous your deed is.
Jud:
You provide a good description of Heidegger here - an unscrupulous kittle
man on the make.
Tudor:
What I plead for is becoming aware of our social nature, and about the
(individual and/or collective) peculiarities of this strange being: the
human.
JUd:
I am with you there Tudor - good luck to you in your endevours.
Cheers,
Jud
--- 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 ---