From: <GEVANS613@xxxxxxx>
To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <nominalism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: PHILOSOPHY AS THE DENIAL OF PHILOSOPHY
Jud,
As someone once said to me: "Never answer
a question. It only encourages people to
ask more!"
> Henk:
> Jud, How essential is this holism in your
> philosophy? Personally I have no problem
> with it.
>
> Jud:
> Without the holism there would be no human
> life, no philosophical discussion. The
> human holism IS philosophy [and a whole
> lot more of course].
This reminds me of Heidegger's description
of Dasein's understanding of Being as the
ground for Human Dasein's finite existence.
Is holism a kind of understanding of
Being?
> Henk:
> As Gregory Bateson once said: "The division
> of the perceived universe into parts and
> wholes is convenient and may be necessary,
> but no necessity determines how it shall
> be done."
> Jud:
> It is not a question [as Bateson says] that
> it MAY be necessary to divide the perceived
> universe into parts — it is CRITICAL
> necessity for human life to survive — for
> human beings to have successfully developed
> in the first place.
[...]
The question remains whether there is a
necessity determining how mankind should
divide the perceived universe.
> Henk:
> Heidegger accepts the division between
> intuition and concept for argument's
> sake but in the end he only speak about
> the understanding of Being of a human
> Dasein.
>
> Jud:
> Dasein is far to crude a concept to engage
> my intellect.
Heidegger has explained the concept in
thousands of pages ...
> Jud:
> Whereas physics finds specifics for the
> proofs of actualities by discovering
> temporally prior actualities, Heidegger's
> brand of philosophy like Kant's can achieve
> autonomy only if it escapes from time by
> escaping from actuality to possibility.
> {an imagined observer or subjective
> experientialist observing and experiencing
> the world.] For Kant the strategy for
> achieving this escape was to replace an
> atemporal Deity with an atemporal "subject of
> experience".
Hm. This is true on an ontological, not
on an ontic level. Ontologically the
Self and Time are not in time - or
one should want to maintain that time
is not a form of intuition but exists
independently.
Jud:
> Kant's "possible experience" may well
> have been the model for Dasein.
> Both these approaches leave me cold,
> for the philosophy and kind of thinking
> that I find suitable is a philosophy
> that deals with what is — and what
> it does — rather than that which is
> not and may or may not possibly do
> this or that.
I assume you are referring to the logical
possible. Or are you also referring to the
potential?
> Jud:
> "Let's Pretend" philosophy is a
> non-starter with me, and if I wished to
> game with possibilities, I would rather
> restrict myself to recognised fiction,
> rather than fiction of human possibilities
> in philosophy's weeds.
If I understand you correctly, you want
to deal only with what exists - not with
how it could have come into existence ...
[...]
> Jud:
> Human holisms at times cognise by
> employing fresh (ready to hand) memory,
> and at other times thinks or cognises
> employing partly remembered, half
> forgotten fragments of memory, which
> when "bundled" provide a viewpoint upon
> which some endeavour can be initiated or
> abandoned. We refer to the second form of
> thinking as:"intuition."
> If enough time is spent "intuitions" can
> be unzipped, and the originative half
> remembered scraps of data restored [rather
> like one can reassemble bits of torn paper
> into a readable page.
How do memory and the actual relate? Or does
my memory of X make X actual? Is human holism
an intuitus originarius? Or are you referring
to something like Kant's schematism?
{...]
> Jud:
> For me the concept of: "self" and "I" and
> "ME", etc., is synonymous with the holism
> which is doing the sensing of its state of
> existing, and its sensing and perception of
> its environment." There is no mediation, no
> facilitation between the act of perception
> of the holism and the perception per se.
So the holism that perceives a thing is at
the same time perceiving itself as a self,
I and me - as Kant/Heidegger maintain.
[...]
> Jud:
> the holistic bodybrain acting as the unity
> it is, and always will be until death. A
> limb may cease to work, an eye may become
> blind, a section of the brain may become
> ineffective or cease to function altogether,
> but the holistic unity is never dissolved
> other than in death.
You describe the holistic unity as
a being in time. How does this
holistic unity knows it is a unity
if it is not ontologically outside
time?
Or are you speaking as an outsider,
looking at the holistic unity not
as an I but as a thing?
> Henk:
> By calling all registered X's Nothing but not
> a nihil absolutum Heidegger only wants to
> say that X is not — yet — known. It is not yet
> this or that thing — and therefore an
> undifferentiated something, i.e. a Nothing.
>
> Jud:
> As I have said, the X for me is the perceiving
> human holism.
This would mean that the perceived is
identical with the perceiver. Is human
holism, as you call something more or
less like Heidegger's Dasein, absolute
self-affection?
This would explain my earlier impression
that the human holism is an intuitus
originarius.
> Jud:
> To call the X or human holism "Being"
> achieves nothing, the non existent,
> indescribable, intangible duality known
> as "Being" is utterly futile [in >
> Michael's words it is useless] and only
> results in misery for the human race -
> FOR WHAT? So that guys can chunner on at
> great length about the ontological ins
> and outs of the Rhine Dam? We ALL know
> what the Rhine dam is and the reasons
> why it was built, and the pros and cons
> of its effect on the environment versus
> the convenience of the electric power it
> generates to operate the fridges
> containing "nothing" and the bay incubators
> and life-support systems containing
> something.
If something = X or Nothing is nothing more
than self-affection how can we all know what
the Rhine Dam is - or anything else outside
our "selves"?
I must have misunderstood you somewhere.
Is there a reality outside the perceiver
in your philosophy? How does the
perceiver relate to the perceived?
[...]
> Henk:
> In what way would Heidegger's Nothing
> and Kant's transcendental object be a
> problem in the context of your
> philosophy?
>
> Jud:
> In what way would an adjustable
> monkey-wrench left in the cylinder
> compartment of a reciprocating gasoline
> engine in a car effect the production of
> rotational energy to drive the wheels? :-)
> The vehicle would scream to a halt
> in a shambles of disfunctional chaos —
> and reason would lose a tiny almost
> inaudible voice to add to the humanity's
> scream of protest against the tempest of
> insanity which threatens to engulf
> the world.
So Nothing as nihil absolutum or Nothing
as something = X both in an ontological
and ontic sense would be against reason.
This would imply that the human holism
has infinite - because unlimited -
knowledge.
Is this Hegelian vision the bottom line
of your philosophy?
Regards,
Henk
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <nominalism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: PHILOSOPHY AS THE DENIAL OF PHILOSOPHY
Jud,
As someone once said to me: "Never answer
a question. It only encourages people to
ask more!"
> Henk:
> Jud, How essential is this holism in your
> philosophy? Personally I have no problem
> with it.
>
> Jud:
> Without the holism there would be no human
> life, no philosophical discussion. The
> human holism IS philosophy [and a whole
> lot more of course].
This reminds me of Heidegger's description
of Dasein's understanding of Being as the
ground for Human Dasein's finite existence.
Is holism a kind of understanding of
Being?
> Henk:
> As Gregory Bateson once said: "The division
> of the perceived universe into parts and
> wholes is convenient and may be necessary,
> but no necessity determines how it shall
> be done."
> Jud:
> It is not a question [as Bateson says] that
> it MAY be necessary to divide the perceived
> universe into parts — it is CRITICAL
> necessity for human life to survive — for
> human beings to have successfully developed
> in the first place.
[...]
The question remains whether there is a
necessity determining how mankind should
divide the perceived universe.
> Henk:
> Heidegger accepts the division between
> intuition and concept for argument's
> sake but in the end he only speak about
> the understanding of Being of a human
> Dasein.
>
> Jud:
> Dasein is far to crude a concept to engage
> my intellect.
Heidegger has explained the concept in
thousands of pages ...
> Jud:
> Whereas physics finds specifics for the
> proofs of actualities by discovering
> temporally prior actualities, Heidegger's
> brand of philosophy like Kant's can achieve
> autonomy only if it escapes from time by
> escaping from actuality to possibility.
> {an imagined observer or subjective
> experientialist observing and experiencing
> the world.] For Kant the strategy for
> achieving this escape was to replace an
> atemporal Deity with an atemporal "subject of
> experience".
Hm. This is true on an ontological, not
on an ontic level. Ontologically the
Self and Time are not in time - or
one should want to maintain that time
is not a form of intuition but exists
independently.
Jud:
> Kant's "possible experience" may well
> have been the model for Dasein.
> Both these approaches leave me cold,
> for the philosophy and kind of thinking
> that I find suitable is a philosophy
> that deals with what is — and what
> it does — rather than that which is
> not and may or may not possibly do
> this or that.
I assume you are referring to the logical
possible. Or are you also referring to the
potential?
> Jud:
> "Let's Pretend" philosophy is a
> non-starter with me, and if I wished to
> game with possibilities, I would rather
> restrict myself to recognised fiction,
> rather than fiction of human possibilities
> in philosophy's weeds.
If I understand you correctly, you want
to deal only with what exists - not with
how it could have come into existence ...
[...]
> Jud:
> Human holisms at times cognise by
> employing fresh (ready to hand) memory,
> and at other times thinks or cognises
> employing partly remembered, half
> forgotten fragments of memory, which
> when "bundled" provide a viewpoint upon
> which some endeavour can be initiated or
> abandoned. We refer to the second form of
> thinking as:"intuition."
> If enough time is spent "intuitions" can
> be unzipped, and the originative half
> remembered scraps of data restored [rather
> like one can reassemble bits of torn paper
> into a readable page.
How do memory and the actual relate? Or does
my memory of X make X actual? Is human holism
an intuitus originarius? Or are you referring
to something like Kant's schematism?
{...]
> Jud:
> For me the concept of: "self" and "I" and
> "ME", etc., is synonymous with the holism
> which is doing the sensing of its state of
> existing, and its sensing and perception of
> its environment." There is no mediation, no
> facilitation between the act of perception
> of the holism and the perception per se.
So the holism that perceives a thing is at
the same time perceiving itself as a self,
I and me - as Kant/Heidegger maintain.
[...]
> Jud:
> the holistic bodybrain acting as the unity
> it is, and always will be until death. A
> limb may cease to work, an eye may become
> blind, a section of the brain may become
> ineffective or cease to function altogether,
> but the holistic unity is never dissolved
> other than in death.
You describe the holistic unity as
a being in time. How does this
holistic unity knows it is a unity
if it is not ontologically outside
time?
Or are you speaking as an outsider,
looking at the holistic unity not
as an I but as a thing?
> Henk:
> By calling all registered X's Nothing but not
> a nihil absolutum Heidegger only wants to
> say that X is not — yet — known. It is not yet
> this or that thing — and therefore an
> undifferentiated something, i.e. a Nothing.
>
> Jud:
> As I have said, the X for me is the perceiving
> human holism.
This would mean that the perceived is
identical with the perceiver. Is human
holism, as you call something more or
less like Heidegger's Dasein, absolute
self-affection?
This would explain my earlier impression
that the human holism is an intuitus
originarius.
> Jud:
> To call the X or human holism "Being"
> achieves nothing, the non existent,
> indescribable, intangible duality known
> as "Being" is utterly futile [in >
> Michael's words it is useless] and only
> results in misery for the human race -
> FOR WHAT? So that guys can chunner on at
> great length about the ontological ins
> and outs of the Rhine Dam? We ALL know
> what the Rhine dam is and the reasons
> why it was built, and the pros and cons
> of its effect on the environment versus
> the convenience of the electric power it
> generates to operate the fridges
> containing "nothing" and the bay incubators
> and life-support systems containing
> something.
If something = X or Nothing is nothing more
than self-affection how can we all know what
the Rhine Dam is - or anything else outside
our "selves"?
I must have misunderstood you somewhere.
Is there a reality outside the perceiver
in your philosophy? How does the
perceiver relate to the perceived?
[...]
> Henk:
> In what way would Heidegger's Nothing
> and Kant's transcendental object be a
> problem in the context of your
> philosophy?
>
> Jud:
> In what way would an adjustable
> monkey-wrench left in the cylinder
> compartment of a reciprocating gasoline
> engine in a car effect the production of
> rotational energy to drive the wheels? :-)
> The vehicle would scream to a halt
> in a shambles of disfunctional chaos —
> and reason would lose a tiny almost
> inaudible voice to add to the humanity's
> scream of protest against the tempest of
> insanity which threatens to engulf
> the world.
So Nothing as nihil absolutum or Nothing
as something = X both in an ontological
and ontic sense would be against reason.
This would imply that the human holism
has infinite - because unlimited -
knowledge.
Is this Hegelian vision the bottom line
of your philosophy?
Regards,
Henk
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---