From: <[email protected]_ (mailto:GEVANS613@xxxxxxx) To:
<[email protected]_ (mailto:heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) ; Jud,
Henk writes:
As someone once said to me: "Never answer a question. It only encourages
people to ask more!"
Jud: [New]
Hi Henk,
As someone once said to me: "Never ask a question. It only encourages people
to answer more!" ;-)
Henk: [New]
Jud, How essential is this holism in your philosophy? Personally I have no
problem with it.
Jud: [New]
Glad to hear that Henk - I feel encouraged.
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].
Henk: [New]
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?
Jud: [New]
No, the holism exists in a state of a constant attempt at self-referential
understanding.
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.
Henk [New]
The question remains whether there is a necessity determining how mankind
should divide the perceived universe.
Jud: [New]
No, "Necessity" doesn't exist. "Necessity" is what the entity man cognises
of as being Necessary
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.
Henk: [New]
Heidegger has explained the concept in thousands of pages ...
Jud:[New]
It is enough to read his Basic Concepts to get the message that he was way
off "ontological message." His writing before his Grundbegriffe were
anticipations of his mistakes to come, and his writings afterwards were extrapolations
from mistakes already made.
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".
Henk [New}
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: [New]
There is no such thing as "the ontological level" - Heidegger's use of it
may sound impressive to newbies, but it is totally meaningless. Notions about
nonentities like "Being" and "Time" [not to be confused with the confusing
book of that name] are created by ontic human holisms and represent
existential ways of existing [cognising] and as such are part and parcel of the ontic.
All ideas about anything are existential modalities of ontic human holisms,
indistinguishable from the holism in the same way that the holism flutters
his eyelashes or scratches his chin. Ideas about the ontic and the ontological
are no more than examples of the cognitive ways that some folk exist.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to speak "ontologically" about anything - one is ALWAYS
speaking as an ontic entity speaking ontically.
The fact that some humans speak ontically about notions of the
"ontological" does not mean that the ontological exists, but only that there are ontic
holisms which speak ontically about the non-existent "ontological." Some ontic
human beings speaking ontically claim that they are the Marquis of Lower
Manhatten, or that there is a white-bearded individual in the sky who at one time
hovered over Mount Sinai and gave some tablets to a guy called Moses - but
that does not mean that the the Marquis of LOwer Manhatten or the ontological
or Mr Whitebeard actually exists or is real. All speech - all communication
is ontic.
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.
Henk: [New]
I assume you are referring to the logical possible. Or are you also
referring to the potential?
Jud: [New]
I was speaking tangentially about Kant's Schemata and in particular the
Transcendental Dialectic and how relevant it is to the metaphysical elephant-pits
which Heidegger kept stumbling into.
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.
Henk: [New]
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.
Henk: [New]
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: [New]
Depends what you mean by X and what you mean by actual. Your memory of your
mother's eyes is a memory, which references a real entity [or one that once
was real.]
Your memory of being held in your mother's arms is not actually a memory of
being held in your mother's arms. It is a memory of your mother's entity
engaged in the existential act of holding you in her arms, and the entitic baby
Henk existing in the existential modality of being held in his mother's arms.
Thus only the entitic holder in the act of holding exists/existed, and only
the entitic held in the submissive state of being held exist/existed.
Sometimes language foxes us into believing that we remember actions when in
fact what we are remembering is the actors in various existential stages of
acting or being acted upon.
{...]
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.
Henk: [New]
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: [New]
It could be loosely be described in so many words yes. In fact whilst we
are perceiving say [looking at a green frog] there is no "inner voice"
reminding us that ("I am Henk looking at a green frog"] but rather there is a feeling
of "worldcentre" a sensing of an observational centricity.
[...]
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.
Henk: [New]
You describe the holistic unity as a being in time. How does this holistic
unity know 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?
Jud: [New] [smiling]
No Henk YOU describe me as describing the holistic unity as a being in time.
I would not do that because for me "time" does not exist. One cannot be
inside or outside something which does not exist - whether it be "time" or
"being" or a garden shed which doesn't exist.
Henk: [New]
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: [New]
The fact that Heidegger [busy in his study] hasn't had time to decide
whether X exists or not is no problem. If it is an entity it exists, whether or
not some guy in Freiburg University
Knows about it or not. There was a Fish and Chip Shop on the corner of our
street until the Nazis bombed it - the fact that it was unknown to Heidegger
does not mean that it didn't exist or it was a "nothing." To say that
because an entity is not known to Heidegger it is a nothing, and then to use an
intensifier such as "absolute" in connection with a non-existent nothing only
proves that Heidegger wasn't a particularly reliable philosopher nor should he
be taken seriously. Absolutes DON'T NEED intensifiers. He was a grammatical
incompetent, and if my 8-year old used such a spurious and invalid
intensifier such as "absolute nothing" or "very true" his schoolbook would be struck
with a red pencil right across the page.
Jud:
As I have said, the X for me is the perceiving human holism.
Henk: [New]
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?
Jud: [New]
No, the existential modality of the holism as it corresponds with the
[incoming] informational ideation of what it perceives as it observes the frog is
identical with the overall existential state of the holism. There is no
dichotomy betwixt the holistic soma and that conceptualising area of the selfsame
soma, which houses the neuronal mechanisms. The perceiving holism as it
perceives the frog is UTTERLY different from the perceived frog - it is the
internalised PERCEPTION of the frog, which is identical to the existential state of
the holism.
Henk: [New]
This would explain my earlier impression that the human holism is an
intuitus originarius.
Jud: [New]
No, intuitus originarius the holism is incapable of "calling up" other
entities just by thinking about them - this is the domain of the witchdoctors of
the African jungle and the academic underbrush of Konigsberg. Kant ascribes
this possibility to God at last. It is the third element which "intellectual
intuition" has in him: "original intuition". The wizard of Konigsberg calls
it somewhere else "intellectus archetypus" or "divine understanding" too,
"which not only presents to itself the objects which are not given, but through
this representation the objects should themselves be given or produced". [B
732, B145]
The so-called "intuitus originarius" means "the intuition which can itself
give us the existence of its object" [B72].
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.
Henk: [New]
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"?
Jud: [New]
The Rhine dam is a very hard concrete something. The liquid that pours
through its generating vanes is a very watery entitic something in which you could
drown if you fell in the strong flow.
Something = X or Nothing? Something NEVER = Nothing - where did you get
that idea from - certainly not from me?
Nothing doesn't exist to be the equal or non-equal of anything - NOTHING is
NOT EVEN the equal of NOTHING. "Empty sets" [the "let's pretend" of
mathematics, of science and logic are valuable non-existent cognitive concepts' which
are represented as the existential cognitive modalities of mathematising
mathematicians, of scientificising scientists and
logicising logicians
Henk:
I must have misunderstood you somewhere.
Henk: [New]
Is there a reality outside the perceiver in your philosophy? How does the
perceiver relate to the perceived?
Jud: [New]
No, "reality" is an abstraction like "love" - it doesn't exist. Only what is
real exists.
Only the loving lovers exist in an existential modality of loving.
Henk: [New]
The perceiving holistic perceiver relates to the perceived in all the myriad
ways that characterises human interaction with other holisms
[...]
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 dysfunctional 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.
Henk: [New]
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?
Jud: [New]
There is no such thing as "nothing" nor Heidegger's unschooled "intensified"
version "absolutely nothing," - or the "ontological," - or "reason" [only
reasoning ontic holisms exist] Hegel an
eliminativist-experientialist-nominalist? Well I'll be danged!
Regards,
Jud.
Your questions are penetrating and very intelligent and posed in a patient
manner. I enjoy addressing them.
--- 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 ---
<[email protected]_ (mailto:heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) ; Jud,
Henk writes:
As someone once said to me: "Never answer a question. It only encourages
people to ask more!"
Jud: [New]
Hi Henk,
As someone once said to me: "Never ask a question. It only encourages people
to answer more!" ;-)
Henk: [New]
Jud, How essential is this holism in your philosophy? Personally I have no
problem with it.
Jud: [New]
Glad to hear that Henk - I feel encouraged.
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].
Henk: [New]
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?
Jud: [New]
No, the holism exists in a state of a constant attempt at self-referential
understanding.
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.
Henk [New]
The question remains whether there is a necessity determining how mankind
should divide the perceived universe.
Jud: [New]
No, "Necessity" doesn't exist. "Necessity" is what the entity man cognises
of as being Necessary
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.
Henk: [New]
Heidegger has explained the concept in thousands of pages ...
Jud:[New]
It is enough to read his Basic Concepts to get the message that he was way
off "ontological message." His writing before his Grundbegriffe were
anticipations of his mistakes to come, and his writings afterwards were extrapolations
from mistakes already made.
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".
Henk [New}
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: [New]
There is no such thing as "the ontological level" - Heidegger's use of it
may sound impressive to newbies, but it is totally meaningless. Notions about
nonentities like "Being" and "Time" [not to be confused with the confusing
book of that name] are created by ontic human holisms and represent
existential ways of existing [cognising] and as such are part and parcel of the ontic.
All ideas about anything are existential modalities of ontic human holisms,
indistinguishable from the holism in the same way that the holism flutters
his eyelashes or scratches his chin. Ideas about the ontic and the ontological
are no more than examples of the cognitive ways that some folk exist.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to speak "ontologically" about anything - one is ALWAYS
speaking as an ontic entity speaking ontically.
The fact that some humans speak ontically about notions of the
"ontological" does not mean that the ontological exists, but only that there are ontic
holisms which speak ontically about the non-existent "ontological." Some ontic
human beings speaking ontically claim that they are the Marquis of Lower
Manhatten, or that there is a white-bearded individual in the sky who at one time
hovered over Mount Sinai and gave some tablets to a guy called Moses - but
that does not mean that the the Marquis of LOwer Manhatten or the ontological
or Mr Whitebeard actually exists or is real. All speech - all communication
is ontic.
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.
Henk: [New]
I assume you are referring to the logical possible. Or are you also
referring to the potential?
Jud: [New]
I was speaking tangentially about Kant's Schemata and in particular the
Transcendental Dialectic and how relevant it is to the metaphysical elephant-pits
which Heidegger kept stumbling into.
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.
Henk: [New]
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.
Henk: [New]
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: [New]
Depends what you mean by X and what you mean by actual. Your memory of your
mother's eyes is a memory, which references a real entity [or one that once
was real.]
Your memory of being held in your mother's arms is not actually a memory of
being held in your mother's arms. It is a memory of your mother's entity
engaged in the existential act of holding you in her arms, and the entitic baby
Henk existing in the existential modality of being held in his mother's arms.
Thus only the entitic holder in the act of holding exists/existed, and only
the entitic held in the submissive state of being held exist/existed.
Sometimes language foxes us into believing that we remember actions when in
fact what we are remembering is the actors in various existential stages of
acting or being acted upon.
{...]
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.
Henk: [New]
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: [New]
It could be loosely be described in so many words yes. In fact whilst we
are perceiving say [looking at a green frog] there is no "inner voice"
reminding us that ("I am Henk looking at a green frog"] but rather there is a feeling
of "worldcentre" a sensing of an observational centricity.
[...]
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.
Henk: [New]
You describe the holistic unity as a being in time. How does this holistic
unity know 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?
Jud: [New] [smiling]
No Henk YOU describe me as describing the holistic unity as a being in time.
I would not do that because for me "time" does not exist. One cannot be
inside or outside something which does not exist - whether it be "time" or
"being" or a garden shed which doesn't exist.
Henk: [New]
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: [New]
The fact that Heidegger [busy in his study] hasn't had time to decide
whether X exists or not is no problem. If it is an entity it exists, whether or
not some guy in Freiburg University
Knows about it or not. There was a Fish and Chip Shop on the corner of our
street until the Nazis bombed it - the fact that it was unknown to Heidegger
does not mean that it didn't exist or it was a "nothing." To say that
because an entity is not known to Heidegger it is a nothing, and then to use an
intensifier such as "absolute" in connection with a non-existent nothing only
proves that Heidegger wasn't a particularly reliable philosopher nor should he
be taken seriously. Absolutes DON'T NEED intensifiers. He was a grammatical
incompetent, and if my 8-year old used such a spurious and invalid
intensifier such as "absolute nothing" or "very true" his schoolbook would be struck
with a red pencil right across the page.
Jud:
As I have said, the X for me is the perceiving human holism.
Henk: [New]
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?
Jud: [New]
No, the existential modality of the holism as it corresponds with the
[incoming] informational ideation of what it perceives as it observes the frog is
identical with the overall existential state of the holism. There is no
dichotomy betwixt the holistic soma and that conceptualising area of the selfsame
soma, which houses the neuronal mechanisms. The perceiving holism as it
perceives the frog is UTTERLY different from the perceived frog - it is the
internalised PERCEPTION of the frog, which is identical to the existential state of
the holism.
Henk: [New]
This would explain my earlier impression that the human holism is an
intuitus originarius.
Jud: [New]
No, intuitus originarius the holism is incapable of "calling up" other
entities just by thinking about them - this is the domain of the witchdoctors of
the African jungle and the academic underbrush of Konigsberg. Kant ascribes
this possibility to God at last. It is the third element which "intellectual
intuition" has in him: "original intuition". The wizard of Konigsberg calls
it somewhere else "intellectus archetypus" or "divine understanding" too,
"which not only presents to itself the objects which are not given, but through
this representation the objects should themselves be given or produced". [B
732, B145]
The so-called "intuitus originarius" means "the intuition which can itself
give us the existence of its object" [B72].
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.
Henk: [New]
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"?
Jud: [New]
The Rhine dam is a very hard concrete something. The liquid that pours
through its generating vanes is a very watery entitic something in which you could
drown if you fell in the strong flow.
Something = X or Nothing? Something NEVER = Nothing - where did you get
that idea from - certainly not from me?
Nothing doesn't exist to be the equal or non-equal of anything - NOTHING is
NOT EVEN the equal of NOTHING. "Empty sets" [the "let's pretend" of
mathematics, of science and logic are valuable non-existent cognitive concepts' which
are represented as the existential cognitive modalities of mathematising
mathematicians, of scientificising scientists and
logicising logicians
Henk:
I must have misunderstood you somewhere.
Henk: [New]
Is there a reality outside the perceiver in your philosophy? How does the
perceiver relate to the perceived?
Jud: [New]
No, "reality" is an abstraction like "love" - it doesn't exist. Only what is
real exists.
Only the loving lovers exist in an existential modality of loving.
Henk: [New]
The perceiving holistic perceiver relates to the perceived in all the myriad
ways that characterises human interaction with other holisms
[...]
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 dysfunctional 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.
Henk: [New]
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?
Jud: [New]
There is no such thing as "nothing" nor Heidegger's unschooled "intensified"
version "absolutely nothing," - or the "ontological," - or "reason" [only
reasoning ontic holisms exist] Hegel an
eliminativist-experientialist-nominalist? Well I'll be danged!
Regards,
Jud.
Your questions are penetrating and very intelligent and posed in a patient
manner. I enjoy addressing them.
--- 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 ---