In a message dated 27/09/2004 12:15:05 GMT Standard Time,
R.B.M.deBakker@xxxxxx writes
Bob writes:
the trouble with the categorical dismissive, liar, imho, is the imputation
of willful deceit, which, if apposite the tendentious usages of power,
politicians, strausians, etc., traduces a class of non-power-freeky (xians,
marxians, humanist scientists, buddhists, nso on) albeit non-heideggerians
honestly struggling for meaning, ...gross simplification worthy the
exhuberance of youth, eminem, but not philosophy. imho truth is not simple;
disclosed-ness is also and simultaneously constructed-ness, ...and for which
the apodictical declaration that german/gk (groundless, subjectivist,
aprioristic constructs) be essential to serious heideggerian thinking, at
the same time denouncing all other believers (metafisicians) for liars, is,
for the contradiction, a luminous if melancholy demonstration
yours,
bob
Rene writes:
Lying:
1.: Everyday lies by and for everyone.
economics:
"This car is friendly to the environment. Buy and drive it, and
the couple will be a friend of nature."
Jud :
I know of no car manufacturer, apart perhaps from the producers of electric
cars that use this as a sales ploy
Perhaps they do so in the Netherlands and Belgium, but certainly not in
Britain. Although motorists her are aware of and generally agree that cars
pollute — they wouldn't give up on the ownership of a vehicle themselves of course.
Rene:
health:
Your child is schizophrenic/your parent has Altzheimer. They have
many of its symptoms. You can't do nothing about it. That's science.
Jud:
Who says these lies? A British doctor who diagnosed
Altzheimer's disease or who deliberately told somebody that they had it when
they didn't would be struck off by the Medical Council very quickly.
As for psychologists and psychiatrists the majority are charlatans — the
second-hand car salesmen of the medical profession.
Rene::
"Support us to bring freedom and democracy to the whole world."
Jud:
Agreed.
Rene:
family:
"Better leave that boy alone, otherwise he'll come back strong"
(Eminem)
Rene:
No philosophy is needed to perceive the cheating. One can feel it
clearly when one is the victim, vaguely when one is (part of) the agent.
Jud:
Yes, all one requires is common sense to see through these types of lies.
Rene:
It makes no sense to go to (2), if (1) is not *experienced*.
Jud:
True.
Rene:
Philosophers often are unknowingly troubled by (1), and therefore go
quickly to (2).
But for the same reason they cannot recognize lying there.
2. Basic lies. They lie at the basis of 'what is today'.
Jud:
Who tells these lies? Christians, Heideggerians, Marxists, Buddhists,
honestly struggling for meaning don't REALISE they are telling lies.
Is the unwitting retailer of lies a liar or is he just a dupe?
For me to construe someone as a liar, there must be an element of
deliberate
pretence in a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth. Just
because [for example]
a Heideggerian's version of truth differs from my own doesn't mean that he
is a liar — it just means that
he believes one thing and I another. I think this is the way Bob feels too?
Rene:
But as lies they don't present themselves as the truth of what is today.
Rather, what is
today, tends to remain hidden.
Jud:
Who is responsible for "hiding" this "truth" of "What is today?" To be
hidden requires a hider.
Because you cannot see a house behind a mountain doesn't mean that it is
hidden -
it just means that you can't see it because the mountain is situated in the
space between.
Lies don't "present themselves" anyway — only liars telling lies present
themselves in the act of lying.…
Rene:
It remains the best hidden, when there is
no (belief in) truth.
Jud:
"What is today" doesn't exist — only which exists exists. "Today" doesn't
exist — it is just an idea we use to differentiate between
the absence of the sun's rays and the presence of the sun's rays as the
earth turns.
Rene:
The consequent insecurity opens the door to terror.
Jud:
There is no door to terror to be opened. There is only the terrorist and the
terrified. Both victims of the evil of transcendentalism.
Rene:
Massive weakness asks for a master.
Jud:
There is no such thing as "massive weakness" only human entities trapped by
the machinations of
Judaeo-Christians trannies who have managed to take over Downing Street and
the Whitehouse, and Islamists who have
dedicated themselves to eliminating their fellow transcendentalists who
cling to a variant transcendentalism in the west.
Rene:
Truth then is no longer a problem.
Jud:
Truth has never been a problem and never will be — the problem is that of
human entities and how they
have different versions of what they think of as truth or falsity.
Rene:
Because everyone lives actually in (1), everydaylife is more and more
corrupted. (progress)
Once again: the concrete, physical consequences of a metaphysics that
is so fundamental, that, if its legacy is denied (lied about), only will
reign stronger.
Jud:
Everyday life — progress is interpreted differently by different people and
cultures.
We can rant agist gas-guzzling cars which pollute the environment, whilst at
the same time the populations of the east are at last
enjoying a living standard which doesn't include death by starvation and no
medical facilities. What's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the
gander. I agree with you that metaphysics is evil — but Heideggerianism
helps perpetuate it with its insistence that being has a "Being" and similar
nonsense.
Rene:
The one, thanks to who this more than complex situation, can be unraveled,
is the one covered with the most and the worst lies. Look what the
subject-object
relation does: "Heidegger is a Nazi"." "Nihilism is always to be fought".
"Always humans have used the subject-object relation, and they'll always
will."
Jud:
But Heidegger was a Nazi and a very fanatical one too — we can see his
membership card.
He was found guilty of crimes by the court that tried him. You'll be saying
that his idol Hitler wasn't a Nazi next. ;-)
Rene:
But metaphysics, the s-o relation, or: ontological difference are nothing
absolute, but they 'are' [stop] geschichtlich.
Historical and modern metaphysics and the ontological joke that we refer to
as: "the ontological difference" are QUITE different from the syntactical
mechanism we use to speak about what we are speaking ABOUT [the subject] and
what we want to say about that subject in relation to some other object.
The first two are spurious fantasies which have caused TREMENDOUS damage to
human kind, whilst the third is an essential aspect of communication.
Rene:
Metaphysics is nothing in a book, it 'is', insofar it is continued, or left
out.
So metaphysics is not a subject, of which essential attributes can be
predicated - already
a CONSEQUENCE of subjectivist thinking - this subject is NOW rather a lie
the way metaphysics is now, as what it 'is' (reigns) now rather thoroughly
unclear.
Jud:
BRAVO Rene! Yes - I agree — though the fact remains does it qualify as a lie
just because it is mouthed by the cognitively challenged?
Is the believing dumbo just plain dumb — or is he a deliberate liar? That is
the question that I [and I think Bob] is asking.
Jesus said: "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." Are we to
forgive the berks who UNKNOWINGLY mouths lies?
Rene:
When THIS is seen, noticed, THEN the realm of questionworthiness,
of possibility is opened.
Jud:
I've been blasting away on this list for years trying to open their eyes,
but for most the blinkers are still firmly in place
and the bleating of "Being, Being, Being!" continues to roll across the
philosophical landscape as if the mother of all flocks had invaded the pitch.
Rene:
Starting with the s-o relation, that has gotten meaningless, and therefore
brought to its ground, that still 'is', but hidden
behind, and in, this same s-o distinction.
Jud:
In a way I would like it [the O-D] to stay, for the entertainment value is
great — and I would miss Michael's agonised contortions and
breathtaking aerial linguistic performances as he attempts to walk the
tightrope from one unreason to another more unreasonable unreason and communicate
what is incommunicable.
Also it is in my interest for the O-D to stay, for being such a stupid idea,
which if left in place will eventually destroy Heideggerianism of its own
accord.
For a similar reason I didn't want the Tories to get rid of Thatcher the
Milk Snatcher - her continued leadership of the Conservative party would have
eventually brought about its total destruction. Sadly they got rid of her too
soon and the malignant metastasising cancer which is British Conservatism
still remains.
Rene:
Metaphysics is not thrown away, on the contrary, it is the angle, by which
solely a turning can be made.
Jud:
Metaphysics is alive and well in the shape of the "ontological difference"
and "Being" and "Dasein." Take those concepts out of Heideggerianism and what
is left? Husserl's spot-on jibe at the contents of B and T - that it is
just "Sociology and Anthropology" — the old phenomenologist was not such a
fool after all. ;-)
Regards,
Jud
Personal Website:
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
E-mail Discussion List:
nominalism@yahoogroups.
--- 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 ---