In a message dated 26/08/2004 17:00:05 GMT Standard Time,
michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Jud in rsponse to my statements concerning what I think Heidegger means by
"be-ing":
> Like the belief in God is in itself not dangerous [as I have just written
in
> my previous post] — it is the social and political outcomes that flow
from
> such beliefs that are dangerous, so the nurturing of a belief or faith in
an
> uncognisable, un-pinpointable, "useless "[to quote your words] imagined
> reality of a transcendental "Being,"
But, Jud, I have just said that being is nothing to be believed or not
believed because it is not an object of belief or disbelief because it is
not an object.
Jud:
Michael [with genuine respect] it does not need to be an "object" [an
existent or hands on material thing]
to be believed in. If it WERE an object like you suggest [it isn't] there
would be no need to believe in it.
Things which exist don't need to be belived in - they are simply entities of
which we are aware.
When I use the word "object" in sentences such as: "Being" is an object of a
Heideggerian's belief, I employ the word "object"
I use it in the grammatical sense of object as a constituent that is acted
upon - "the object of the verb "to believe."
Thus "Being" is the object of a Heideggerian believing that "Being" can be
talked about in a meaningful way, whereas a non-believer believes that
such talk of "Being" as constituting a viable and meangful object of
philosphical discussion is meaningless as well as being "useless" as you have
already inteligently pointed out.
Michael:
Again, it is not an object of belief or faith or any thing
else, since it is not an object (rather the objectivity, or rather the
object-ing of the objective) nor a thing (thus not a some thing, rather the
thing-ing of things, thus not itself a thing), but neither is it nothing
(just because it is no thing);
Jud:
The "object-ing of the objective" is just another way of saying a
"reification of..."
It is precisely this "ontological misdemenour" or "cognitive vandalism"
[this is not to impute that you personally are a criminal or a vandal] which
causes all the trouble.
"Being" has GOT TO BE an article of faith, for if "Being" WAS obvious,
explainable, detectable, definable,
etc., there would be no need to believe in it. (see Voltaire]
Things which exist don't need to be believed in - they are simply entities
of which we are aware.
THERE IS NO NEED to objectfy that which already exists for it is
automatically objectified in its existing.
Objectification and existing are EXACTLY the same existential states.
That which doesn't exist cannot be objectified. An object is an
objectification of itself. It needs no
human observer or commentator to objectify the objectified.
MichaeL
Of course, it _is nothing_ to one who only
believes or hankers after things (stuff, bodies, material particles, forces,
etc); yes, one can believe in things (stuff, etc) and superthings (gods,
Nature, the Cosmos, The Revolution, History, The Universe, Mankind,
Nationhood, the Ecosystem, etc). But one cannot and does not believe or have
faith in something which is not some thing (or superthing), whether existent
in your eyes or not.
Jud:
Faith in something which patently and manifestly exists is not neccessary.
Faith is only required in those notions which do not exist. All that exists
as far as "Being" is concerned, is the human being who
thinks it meaningful as something which is thought by the person you thinks
it meaningful.
My observations regarding the basic meaninglessness of "Being" do not
represent a hankering for things material,
but simply the reaction of a mind such as mine to such claims after a life
long consideration of the facts and the
nature of the people that propose such beliefs and their historical and
modern agenda.
Michael:
I completely agree with your sentiments concerning
religiosity and its dangers especially in an age that employs such
religiosities in accordance with the dance of gestell and widerville (which
just uses every thing and everything up to promote and continue its self
regardless, lacking all reck (and I always have agreed with you on that).
It's just that your take on (Heidegger's notion of) being is in error with
respect to this business of it being some kind of religious or
transcendental object of belief and faith: for Heidegger, IMO, god and gods,
not to mention dogs, are precisely beings and thus precisely NOT BE-ING.
Jud:
To be a being means it must Be - it must exist. "God" and "Being" [and
existence]
do not exist, and therfore do not qualify to be treated [cognised of]
philosophically in
the same way as A being To treat "Being" in such a way is an ontological
and catagorial
falsehood which I am sure in you case is due to a misunderstanding NOT a
form of deviousness.
Michael:
And, as I have written today to Gary, be-ing is as far from an abstraction
as could possibly be.
Jud:
It is for it is in the same category as "arm-stretching" or "horse-riding" -
it is an abstraction we huse to desribe the actions of the arm-strexher of
the horse rider and the horses action. "Being" is an abstraction used by
Heidegger to describe BOTH the existential modality of the life the human leads
AND ALSO the "pure presence" This so-called "ontological differece" is the
misconstrued, misunderstood ship upon which his frail ontological bark founders.
MichaeL;
Thus however abstract you might want to paint be-ing
(like the notion of the christian god as being most abstract compared to the
god and gods of the jews and greeks resp.) and thus compare it to a rarefied
version of an absent transcendent god (as many Heideggerians have attempted
to do not to mention the deux absenta of Negative Theology), this is utterly
wrong, IMO. So think again. Try thinking what is not any thing whatsoever
but not nothing either. In another post, I shall present an example that
comes from mathematics that kinda mirrors this seemingly impossible X that
is not nothing but not some thing either but which we can think...
Jud:
What is not any thing whatsoever but not nothing either is a meaningless
notion.
A thing CANNOT NOT BE NOTHING - Nothing cannot be either something or
nothing.
Nothing as Parmenides said cannot be talked about [I add meaningfully]
with a reciprocated respect
and regards
Jud
In a rush - probable typos will be found - Dinner at 7.30 wit a grown up son
and partner.
I'm out of door!
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
��Ҷ��2)�Y����i�z{l�騽����Ơzf��������mi�z{l����z����+�/��֥���֜�g������+-���J��Ȧy�������,y�0JZ����j�j[^�v����V���w/���ױ�����~�&�+-�� ���)ej��*����