> 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.
Bereft of every doctrine (provided such a "thing" is possible), people would
suffer even more. The argument is very old, people do not feed only with
"bread" (i.e., food and drinks), but also with words. By not allowing those
to feed with words, they become dissatisfied, crippled hearts, power hungry,
erratic and violent.
> For all the religious, politial, transcendentalist and politivcal
> crazies the end justifies the means.
Well, from a neutral viewpoint, this is not about having an abnormal mind,
but about finding the proper reason which one makes it public in order to
get done the things he wants being done. From a concerned viewpoint, it is
true, this mostly results in misery, and this is part of human nature: some
humans enjoy the misery of others. Only by realizing how things are, only
then one is able to change them (for better or for worse).
> 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 making allowances for the fact that English is not your native
> language, so I am not overly criticizing you for not picking this up.
Well, yes, we agree that the word "thing" represents something specific in a
specific context. But what does "thing" means in itself? E.g., it is defined
in the dictionary in a highly abstract form.
> 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.
Well, so, one puts a layer of bricks on/in the ground, and then another
layer on top of that layer and so on. What's the problem with it? What we do
with words in metaphysics is the same "thing": we use such bricks (i.e.,
words) in order to build something.
> 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.
Even here (above), most words therein are not the first (basic) layer of
bricks.
> Tudor:
> 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.
I understand that his brain might have been affected; however, the medicine
did not get inside the argument! You know, in philosophy, it does not matter
so much what kind of person said something, as it matter the truth value of
such words. Otherwise, it would be the same as refusing a tasteful and
hygienic meal just because the cook is non-white. A meal is judged by its
taste, biological and chemical characteristics, not by the skin color of the
person who made it.
> Jud:
> They are far more likely to run in SOMEBODY ELSES church or mosque or
> temple and explode bombs there.
Not if they stick to the essence of their own religion: doing the good.
> > 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.
Ok, but still, the question was about if a certain entity exists, not about
if the existence exists. Even so, if we call existence that fact that
something exists, then this is what we mean by the existence: the fact that
(at least) some things exist. And, since you won't deny that (at least) some
things exist, then existence (the fact that they exist) exists, because it
is a fact.
> 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?
I believe it, Jud. But, I only pointed that senses (by themselves) are not
able to decide in the problem of existence of an/the electron. Only by using
layers upon layers of words are we able to prove that electrons do exist.
> 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."
So, I think this is the basic contradiction in your theory: you draw a line
between meaningful words and meaningless words. But, the way you draw that
line, one is left with insufficient meaning in order to make sense and
function in this complex world.
> 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.
You may think that higher abstraction is a source of confusion and you may
think people who lead this world are scoundrels, but keeping Russians remote
from launching the atomic bomb was done through the mathematics of Von
Neumann, knowledge of physics, climatology, psychology, politics, society,
administration, bureaucracies, intelligence and enemy's (probable) way of
thinking. You see, all this particular stuff was employed as the pieces of a
puzzle in order to get the desired effect (i.e. preventing and atomic
winter). The puzzle in itself is extremely abstract, and certainly you
cannot solve such a puzzle within the separation line (between meaning and
non-meaning) which you draw above. This is what I mean by "insufficient
metaphysical-mental development".
> 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.
My personal beliefs are: (i) Bush is an evil man; (ii) Bush is a necessary
man; (iii) such necessity holds regardless of particular personalities as
Bush and Blair. The whole political system has run amok, and this is in the
least important instance the fault of Bush and Blair. In the foremost
instance, the system has run amok because it undermined its own equilibrium.
Due to faults in conceiving the system, it has turned against itself. This
way, the system destroyed its own conditions which allowed it to exist, and
now it is badly in need of reform. By putting Bush and Blair in jail, we
won't solve the problem. Because, you know, even if one would want to put
the system in jail, you can't put the whole Earth in jail. Because a jail
cannot exist on its own: somebody has to be productive, somebody has to
think upon the problems which arise in such a jail, and so on, problems of
increasing abstraction -- often in solving such problems efficiency is
function of allowed freedom of spirit. It is simplistic to think one can
stop a Leviathan by removing one of its thousand heads. We live the moment
when the convulsions of Leviathan have begun. He is to die and be replaced
with a new Leviathan. The important fight today is between tiny Leviathans
seeking to be born. It is rubbish to think we can get rid of leviathanity
itself.
> 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.
Again, the person as such does not matter much. For, if he said no true
thing, then he was a clown, and clowns never produced a revolution; clowns
are to be laughed at, but they are never dangerous. But, if he said some
true stuff, then it is our duty as thinkers to recognize what was true in
what he said and turn that into a public good (e.g. science). Then, it is up
to people who are able to apply such science to make up their minds if they
use it for evil or for good.
Tudor Georgescu
http://intellect-club.nl.eu.org
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> 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.
Bereft of every doctrine (provided such a "thing" is possible), people would
suffer even more. The argument is very old, people do not feed only with
"bread" (i.e., food and drinks), but also with words. By not allowing those
to feed with words, they become dissatisfied, crippled hearts, power hungry,
erratic and violent.
> For all the religious, politial, transcendentalist and politivcal
> crazies the end justifies the means.
Well, from a neutral viewpoint, this is not about having an abnormal mind,
but about finding the proper reason which one makes it public in order to
get done the things he wants being done. From a concerned viewpoint, it is
true, this mostly results in misery, and this is part of human nature: some
humans enjoy the misery of others. Only by realizing how things are, only
then one is able to change them (for better or for worse).
> 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 making allowances for the fact that English is not your native
> language, so I am not overly criticizing you for not picking this up.
Well, yes, we agree that the word "thing" represents something specific in a
specific context. But what does "thing" means in itself? E.g., it is defined
in the dictionary in a highly abstract form.
> 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.
Well, so, one puts a layer of bricks on/in the ground, and then another
layer on top of that layer and so on. What's the problem with it? What we do
with words in metaphysics is the same "thing": we use such bricks (i.e.,
words) in order to build something.
> 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.
Even here (above), most words therein are not the first (basic) layer of
bricks.
> Tudor:
> 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.
I understand that his brain might have been affected; however, the medicine
did not get inside the argument! You know, in philosophy, it does not matter
so much what kind of person said something, as it matter the truth value of
such words. Otherwise, it would be the same as refusing a tasteful and
hygienic meal just because the cook is non-white. A meal is judged by its
taste, biological and chemical characteristics, not by the skin color of the
person who made it.
> Jud:
> They are far more likely to run in SOMEBODY ELSES church or mosque or
> temple and explode bombs there.
Not if they stick to the essence of their own religion: doing the good.
> > 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.
Ok, but still, the question was about if a certain entity exists, not about
if the existence exists. Even so, if we call existence that fact that
something exists, then this is what we mean by the existence: the fact that
(at least) some things exist. And, since you won't deny that (at least) some
things exist, then existence (the fact that they exist) exists, because it
is a fact.
> 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?
I believe it, Jud. But, I only pointed that senses (by themselves) are not
able to decide in the problem of existence of an/the electron. Only by using
layers upon layers of words are we able to prove that electrons do exist.
> 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."
So, I think this is the basic contradiction in your theory: you draw a line
between meaningful words and meaningless words. But, the way you draw that
line, one is left with insufficient meaning in order to make sense and
function in this complex world.
> 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.
You may think that higher abstraction is a source of confusion and you may
think people who lead this world are scoundrels, but keeping Russians remote
from launching the atomic bomb was done through the mathematics of Von
Neumann, knowledge of physics, climatology, psychology, politics, society,
administration, bureaucracies, intelligence and enemy's (probable) way of
thinking. You see, all this particular stuff was employed as the pieces of a
puzzle in order to get the desired effect (i.e. preventing and atomic
winter). The puzzle in itself is extremely abstract, and certainly you
cannot solve such a puzzle within the separation line (between meaning and
non-meaning) which you draw above. This is what I mean by "insufficient
metaphysical-mental development".
> 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.
My personal beliefs are: (i) Bush is an evil man; (ii) Bush is a necessary
man; (iii) such necessity holds regardless of particular personalities as
Bush and Blair. The whole political system has run amok, and this is in the
least important instance the fault of Bush and Blair. In the foremost
instance, the system has run amok because it undermined its own equilibrium.
Due to faults in conceiving the system, it has turned against itself. This
way, the system destroyed its own conditions which allowed it to exist, and
now it is badly in need of reform. By putting Bush and Blair in jail, we
won't solve the problem. Because, you know, even if one would want to put
the system in jail, you can't put the whole Earth in jail. Because a jail
cannot exist on its own: somebody has to be productive, somebody has to
think upon the problems which arise in such a jail, and so on, problems of
increasing abstraction -- often in solving such problems efficiency is
function of allowed freedom of spirit. It is simplistic to think one can
stop a Leviathan by removing one of its thousand heads. We live the moment
when the convulsions of Leviathan have begun. He is to die and be replaced
with a new Leviathan. The important fight today is between tiny Leviathans
seeking to be born. It is rubbish to think we can get rid of leviathanity
itself.
> 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.
Again, the person as such does not matter much. For, if he said no true
thing, then he was a clown, and clowns never produced a revolution; clowns
are to be laughed at, but they are never dangerous. But, if he said some
true stuff, then it is our duty as thinkers to recognize what was true in
what he said and turn that into a public good (e.g. science). Then, it is up
to people who are able to apply such science to make up their minds if they
use it for evil or for good.
Tudor Georgescu
http://intellect-club.nl.eu.org
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---