In a message dated 28/09/2004 16:00:11 GMT Standard Time,
R.B.M.deBakker@xxxxxx writes:
> Because a critics like Jud's is itself lastly a consequence of od:
> Das Sein [-as Sein des Seienden-] wird zum Gespoett.
I 'understand' everything up to "wird zum Gespoett"; can you please
trans-late for me?
Being merely something to make a mock of.
Equivalent with the inability to take oneself seriously.
Jud:
How can one mock "Being" when it doesn't exist? Can't even be described.
Can't describe it? It's easy — blame the tools of language — it's a great
cop-out.
Heideggerian:
"What do you mean when you say the table is all crooked and wonky? It's the
tools old boy.
My chisel is blunt, my saw is bent and crooked. You cannot expect to make a
good table with inadequate tools."
I'm sorry old bean - we just haven't got good-enough words to describe it.
Yes, I KNOW "Being" sounds
a stupid idea - but that is only because words fail me. It's not ME that's
stupid it's the WORDS - or lack of them."
Jud:
I mock the very IDEA of "Being" — the fact that in the 21st-century there
are still people who
have faith in the notion of "Being," like tree-worshippers believing that a
spirit lives within the trunk of a tree just because some cavorting idiot
with a necklace of boar's teeth round his neck told them so, or some prancing
idiot with a Nazi Badge in his lapel said the tree has a "Being"..
Such ideas are impossible NOT to mock. How in the name of Jesus can one keep
one's face straight? I'm not made of stone — the chuckles bubble up of their
own accord — the Heideggerian jesuitical jester bangs about with his
philosophical pig's-bladder and the audience roars — that's show-business for Gawd's
sake. To believe in such fatuous nonsense — to act like an ignorant
shaven-headed scholastic throwback and believe in such things — now THAT would be to
disrespect oneself [and everybody else] and not to take oneself seriously.
> Heidegger says it, and Jud proves it. In this world, as it is now,
> Being and truth HAVE no place, that's Seinsverlassenheit: the world,
> that which is, is LEFT by Being.
> When od, as the realm of metaphysics,
Jud:
'Being" and "truth have no place because NEITHER exist.
Both are psychologic notions of psychologicalist Heideggerianism.
The psychologicism that Husserl held so much in contempt and scorn.
With no attempt at an anticipatory denial on my part, please explain/reason
how/why ontological difference is (the last vestige of?) metaphysics: again
I am not denying such a claim, but want it substantiated in some way...
When, as you acknowledge, metaphysics and metaphysical s-p logic are, for
the time being, the only way of representation and language, that are still
'working' (actual/effective), then they must be inherent in every speaking,
not the least in an effort to explain ontological difference.
Heidegger himself did not question this grip of metaphysical conceptuality,
Jud:
I'm not surprised seeing as such silliness held him in such an iron grip.
esp. when, in The principle of ground, he looks back at his own efforts
end 20ies, beginning 30ies, which he considers to be the always more
unpromising and self-willing avoidings of the truth of being-itself.
Dasein in BT, although as being-in-the-world immediately conceived beyond
any form of conscience (Bewusstsein), is far from being by itself a
liberation
from metaphysics.
Jud:
Dasein is itself a metaphysical construction and a very crude effort at that.
I will give him 1 out of 10 and send him to the back of the class.
Only a first step, which was to be continued by incessant
BEING the Da. Again, with metaphysical backdrop.
The complexity of the relation subject-Dasein (metaphysics-thinking of Being)
turns a simple and direct (one-sided) access of ontological difference into
an impossibility. Rather is to be shown, that metaphysical thinking makes
usage of the realm of od, without ever being able - but also not obliged -
to target the difference of beings and beingness itself.
Jud:
"Beingness" is no more of a sane idea than "Fishing-for-tadpolesness" or
"Twirling-the-ends-of-one's-moustachness."
Totally juvenile.
And that only now,
in the time of the completion of metaphysics (technology),
Jud:
Metaphysics is never completed — it goes on in the exchanges between
Heideggerians.
It is taught in the corridors of shame. It is spouted in the Whitehouse,
Downing Street, Aron's lair,
the smoky camps of the Arabs. End of metaphysics my sweet Fanny Adams.
It's being TAUGHT at our universities for Chistsake.
we are obliged to
go the way into the ground of metaphysics, as Heidegger undertook after BT,
and for which he had to question 'Dasein' again and again. (see the idea of
a fundamental ontology in GA26 - 1928)
In thinking, one always stands in the way of oneself.
And the better the
thinking and the thinker, the stronger the misleading, and the greater the
risks. Only acknowledgment helps further. But that presupposes the
will/ability
to fight oneself, and the truth represented by this self
> is completed like metaphysics itself,
> then further development of ontol. difference, the reduction of what is
to
> an essential being, must be considered as madness. Right.
Not necessarily. I'm not sure at all that "further development of ontol.
difference" is at all "the reduction of what is to an essential being".
Precisely the ontological difference demands/commands the (different)
difference between be-ing and any being (or all beings, or
beings-as-a-whole, or the common-ness or averageness or 'essence' of beings,
etc), and demands it not be reduced to such flattening. To do THIS would be
madness! What re-mains with the dissolution of the OD?
Jud;
The ontological sameness of course! Enties existing as they exist without
any silly
old-fashioned deluded attributions of "onto - illogical difference."
OR: dissolution of the od means the same as completion of metaphysics, the
insight
into which solely can lead to a turning of od.
Compare in Nietzsche 2, 'European nihilism' (1940), the introduction of
ontological
difference in a paragraph following the one called The end of metaphysics.
Is this the same as
what remains when the destruction of appearance means the destruction of the
real in Nietzsche? A play of surfaces without the depth that surfaces need
to BE superficial?
If you mean, that with the supersensible also the sensible falls, that is:
that the distinction of true world and world of appearance falls, then yes,
there is the end of metaphysics as thought by Nietzsche.
Jud:
A sudden "late developer" cognitive catching-up, a realisation on the
behalf of those that still worship the "O-D"
that it is a lot nonsense, wouldn't mean that all the worlds entities would
suddenly go "pop!" and disappear like the witch in the Wizard of Oz..
Hahahahaha!
The world exists as the world — it has always done so and always will.
There IS NO "ontological difference"
only those ontologically disabled people who within their muddled minds
continue to believe in such curious notions.
Heideggerianism is a strange misty landscape lost to time — like "The Lost
World" of HG Wells - a remote plateau where
yellow-fanged drooling dinosaurs roam, and the pterodactyls of internalised
unknowingness and self-hate attack their own kind with vicious saw-toothed
beaks.
I shudder in this dark, cold place of ignorance. When will the skinhead
King Kong of transcendentalist ignorance break through
the great door and wreak bloody murder on an innocent world? When will the
intellectually contaminated youth of our universities, doped with
daseinic drugs and bad Greek have to listen to an American or British
version of the Rectoral Adress --- before hurling themselves into the trenches
to kill and be killed by transcendentalist hordes from other lands?
Regards,
Jud
Personal Website:
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
E-mail Discussion List:
nominalism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- 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 ---