Dear Jud, in order not to have to go through arguments which, although I
could, would not be in my problematic to problematicise [sic], I shall keep
this response brief.
I think the Helga Zepp-LaRouche/Lehmann reference was unnecessary; your main
point seems to have been a doubled eureka moment concerning the 'discovery'
that Heidegger's notion of be-ing (and that changed throughout, but... never
mind such subtleties) was just a gloss for the artist formerly known as
"god". Firstly I am not at all convinced that either Helga Zepp-LaRouche or
Lehmann were simply arguing for this in the texts you have brought to
appearance; secondly, to identify be-ing with god or with anything at all,
with any being (material entity, idea, believable or unbelievable something,
etc, anything whatsoever) is precisely what the whole of Heidegger's
thinking is out to show is the very essence of the metaphysics he is trying
to deconstruct; the irony in 'discovering' this "god-being tie-up" is a
gob-smackingly oxymoronic turn that leaves me breathless and eye-wateringly
bellowing in hilarity if not in a faint close to deep unconsciousness (for
want of being distanced from such nonsense). The sky gods blue.
The theologians desperately want (like you) to find an identity between
Heidegger's be-ing and god, even an absent god, and, of course desperados
tend to fit everything unfitted together albeit uncomfortably; but does that
mean they have 'discovered' something? If I remember correctly from my
youthful scientific days, the way the neutrino was 'discovered' was by
symetricising the seemingly inbalanced equations that should have described
the behaviour of particles in some set of experiments; the 'bit' added on to
balance the equations and make them nice and symmetrical again represented a
'new' particle, with such and such properties, the neutrino. Thus the
ever-ongoing-neverending 'discovery' and proliferation of new subatomic
particles that were supposed to be the integral fundamental building blocks
of mattergy.
Nope, it simply won't do to simplistically identify be-ing with any being
(whether 'god' or 'the cosmos' or whatever). We, of course, can talk of the
be-ing of god, be-cause be-ing [is] always the be-ing of some being (or
beings, or all beings, or even no beings). I do wish you would entertain
singing (out of tune so far) some other tune on this list. It also does no
good to your 'cause' to rope in dodgy goons like Helga Zepp-LaRouche and
no-clue theologians like Lehmann, nevermind the barrel-loads of nazis and
neo-nazis that you quote in support; why do you take these shits' words for
anything, especially given your attitude towards them? You become their
mouthpiece. Brilliant. J-d gods brilliant.
regards
michaelP
>From: GEVANS613@xxxxxxx
>To: heidegger-dialognet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: For *Being* aka *GOD.* Michael, Fred and Suleyman
>Date: Mon, Oct 18, 2004, 12:20 pm
> In a message dated 18/10/2004 10:51:52 GMT Standard Time,
> michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> Dear Michael.
> Just to make it easier on my typing-fingers - If you don't mind I will
> consign this letter to Fred and Suleyman too - for the same subject
[substitution
> of Being* for *God*] is dealt with in their messages too.
>
>
> Michael:
> Jud claims victory:
>
> Jud [previously] I KNEW I was on the right track!
>
>
> Michael:
> [but you have never openly questioned it, so you didn't need any validation
> from Helga Zepp-LaRouche]
>
> Jud:
> *Openly questioned WHAT Michael? [caps for emphasis only]
> That I was on the right track? I COURSE I knew I had got Heidegger sussed
> as a closet religo-freak.
> As soon as I had finished the opening chapter of the Grundbegriffe I could
> see that.
> What I am referring to is Zepp-Larouche's insight that if you execute a
> *find and replace* operation of Being and Time, and replace the word *Being*
> with *God* the thing reads almost exactly the same. This is what
> anti-religious assholes like *waz-iz-name* have never grasped — and that is
why he was
> so laughable in his hate-ridden diatribes against Anthony. The laugh is that
> he is more religious than Anthony!
>
> _http://www.schillerinstitute.com/fid_91-96/951_hzl_heidegger.html_
> (http://www.schillerinstitute.com/fid_91-96/951_hzl_heidegger.html)
>
>
> What is most outrageous about this [what? mP], is that Lehmann treats
> Heidegger in the most objective and positive manner, as if nothing were wrong.
He
> says, finally, "The destruction of traditional theology through Heidegger was
> shocking, obviously; but his conviction that ontology could not be based in
> the traditional theological form, he had already said very clearly in Being
> and Time." So, he does not find this very objectionable, that theology does
not
> have to explain ontology; and, he says, all the questioning of Heidegger is
> in vain, if one substitutes for the word Being, the word God.
>
> Michael:
> Well, this is worth putting in a certain con-text (not fully, I need to read
> the whole thing -- soon) somewhat left out in the rain by Jud: the whole
> paragraph above is not written by Jud, but one Helga Zepp-LaRouche in an
article
> for the Schiller Institute website, reprinted from the Spring 1995 issue of
> FIDELIO Magazine, entitled 'Today's Conservative Revolution and the Ideology
> of the Nazis': The Case of Martin Heidegger'.
>
> Jud:
> That is PRECISELY why I provided the URL. I have also published her article
> on the Anti-Heidegger section and the Athenaeum Library of my site about a
> year ago, but it was only when I revisited it that I was reminded of the
> *God-Being* tie-up and switch whizz. I see it all now. When Heidegger
confessed
> to being a *theologion* — [rather than a philosopher IMO] HE MEANT IT! But
> what an INCONSISTENT theologian he was!
> First, in the *Introduction to Metaphysics,* which first hit the Nazi
> presses in 1944 as the Allied tanks rolled ashore in Normandy, he stated that
> *Being* might well be WITHOUT entities [wrap your acrobatic shins around that
one]
> and that would mean without *Dasein* as one such entity.
> Later however our doughty theologian rewrites creation and changed it to the
> doctrine that *Being* NEVER IS WITHOUT entities.
> Another example of his utter ontological confusion is his view of *language.
> In B and T he is at pains to inform the PITS [people in the street] that
> *language is no more that *utteredness* of discourse or speech, later however
> he rushes to say that *language* is that out of which such an individual
> speaks and upon which he depends in multiple ways that need describing and
the
> mention of *discourse* drops out of view and is replaced again by the word
> *language.*
> Now comes the REAL crackpottery — for a *word* becomes that *first brings a
> thing into its is* — as if Auntie Annie's fur coat in the wardrobe doesn't
> exist until Heidegger mouths the magic abracadabra words *fur-coat.* In the
> bowels of Martin Luther - can we call this tripe PHILOSOPHY???
>
> Michael:
> She begins her article with:
>
> "Martin Heidegger is generally known among professional philosophers in
> academic circles. Many believe that he is the greatest thinker of this
century.
> Many French philosophers are convinced of it, and many even think that he is
> the greatest thinker of all time. (After having tried to read him, I can tell
> you that that is a little bit difficult to imagine, because what he has
> produced is an incredible amount of gobbledygook.) His work is a symptom of
our
> present-day confusion"
>
> So, the revelation concerning Lehmann, presumably a Catholic theologian, and
> his thinking concerning Heidegger, is revealed by one (IMO) who is too lazy
> and ignorant wrt Heidegger to even find anything other than "an incredible
> amount of gobbledygook" in his writing.
>
> Jud:
> The gobbledygook is ultimately understandable — but it remains childish
> jargon in the sense that though it is very *babyish,* it is deliberately
dense,
> like a precociously aware, but language-deficient child, charging about the
> nursery mouthing repetitious, meandering, inanities and chalk-boarding the
most
> badly written text I have ever encountered in all my life as a reader [and
> I've had nine children of my own.]
>
> Michael:
> This absence of any genuine critical stance (one that would bother to read
> and re-read the works of philosophy as something necessarily difficult and
> possibly confusing, especially for those with singularly diminished
imagination
> and hermeneutical skill or even desire; one that has always already set out
> to add her two-pennies'-worth to the Heidegger-bashing industry). Given her
> uttermost present-day confusion
> (blinded by the {IMO} jealous hatred of Heidegger's thinking, presumably:
> it's too difficult for me to understand, thus it must be rubbish out to
insult
> me, thus I must bash it in order to retain my pride in my self and have
> something to say at all costs), it is perhaps reasonable that I find her
> characterisation of Heidegger through Lehmann in the quote above difficult to
> understand. In particular, the last sentence:
>
> Jud:
> You have missed the whole point Michael, [although I do have some sympathy
> with your criticism of Zepp-LaRouche]
> I am not particularly interested in what she has to say about Heidegger
> other that her noticing the prudent observation of the theologically -minded
> Lehmann which amounts to the *revelation* that *Being* is just a codeword
> for God.
>
> Michael:
> "and, he [Lehmann] says, all the questioning of Heidegger is in vain, if one
> substitutes for the word Being, the word God."
>
> What is this supposed to be saying? [a genuine question]
>
> Jud:
> As I say above — *Being* is just a codeword for God. Which is so OBVIOUS
> that even someone with double-bottle-tops for lenses should be able to see
it.
>
> Michael:
> I find it extremely difficult, in my 'present-day confusion', to render
> significance to the statements of a Heidegger 'critic' who begins the way she
> does with the statement that all Heidegger wrote was gobbledegook -- one
> presumes she must have gobbled up most of it in order to be able to make such
a
> knowledgable claim, but I would hazard a guess that she did not, apart from
some
> kind of predatorial key-word speed-reading {i. e., not reading at all} of the
> already foretold juicy-bits.
>
>
> Jud:
> Like all who dip their pens in the cloaca of the Heidegger Industry - she
> has to earn a crust I suppose. ;-)
>
>
> Michael:
> If Heidegger indeed writes nothing but masses of nonsense, then why bother
> with his thinking as if it were significant? this surely makes dunces of such
> 'critics' (to be so bothering with self-claimed nonsense).
>
> Jud:
> People worry about its effects on society. One may think government [any
> government] policy is *masses of damaging nonsense* - but that does not say
that
> the damaging nonsense should be ignored. This is how Anti-Heideggerians
> feel about the Heideggerian zombification of western philosophy.
>
>
> Michael:
> As for the business of substitutions for be-ing: why consider any such
> substitutions? Be-ing, if it is anything, is not a thing, is not any thing,
>
> Jud:
> Neither is *God* — but think of all the TROUBLE the notion causes - First
> the synagogues are vandalised and set on fire then five churches attacked
> yesterday — what happens tomorrow — the skinheads will be attacking
British
> mosques next and then the balloon will go up? Evil just CANNOT be ignored.
We
> CANNOT just look the other way or sit on the fence — an occupation which
you
> have [in good faith I am sure — but naively] elevated to some kind of moral
> highground.
>
> Michael:
> [referring to *Being*] ..and thus metaphorisation is denied it; be-ing is
> the uniquely unique and thus its 'word', "be-ing" can not be the name of any
> thing, it being the very possibility for naming and metaphorisation. Of
course,
> one can play the game of cheery substitutions such as "god", "cause",
> "consciousness", "spirit", etc, etc: but that is just unserious wholly
metaphysical
> play. Whatever game Helga Zepp-LaRouche is playing, it is hard to take
> seriously her (obviously pre-determined) conclusions and amassed arguments
> (although I could try if anyone wants...) when all she has 'read' of
Heidegger, is
> masses of "gobbledegook" amounting to "a symptom of our present-day
confusion"
> [perhaps read "*her* present-day confusion"].
>
> Jud:
> Your constant plain that the gerundial freak *Being* is *untouchable* in an
> Eliot Ness sort of way] is just a cop-out. You continually refer to
> something which you openly admit has the same status as a metaphor — but
the whole
> POINT of my posting is to inform those whose bottle-tops are just TOO thick
to
> see through that *Being* is a METAPHOR FOR *GOD.*
>
>
> Which is EXACTLY what I suggested years ago!
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
could, would not be in my problematic to problematicise [sic], I shall keep
this response brief.
I think the Helga Zepp-LaRouche/Lehmann reference was unnecessary; your main
point seems to have been a doubled eureka moment concerning the 'discovery'
that Heidegger's notion of be-ing (and that changed throughout, but... never
mind such subtleties) was just a gloss for the artist formerly known as
"god". Firstly I am not at all convinced that either Helga Zepp-LaRouche or
Lehmann were simply arguing for this in the texts you have brought to
appearance; secondly, to identify be-ing with god or with anything at all,
with any being (material entity, idea, believable or unbelievable something,
etc, anything whatsoever) is precisely what the whole of Heidegger's
thinking is out to show is the very essence of the metaphysics he is trying
to deconstruct; the irony in 'discovering' this "god-being tie-up" is a
gob-smackingly oxymoronic turn that leaves me breathless and eye-wateringly
bellowing in hilarity if not in a faint close to deep unconsciousness (for
want of being distanced from such nonsense). The sky gods blue.
The theologians desperately want (like you) to find an identity between
Heidegger's be-ing and god, even an absent god, and, of course desperados
tend to fit everything unfitted together albeit uncomfortably; but does that
mean they have 'discovered' something? If I remember correctly from my
youthful scientific days, the way the neutrino was 'discovered' was by
symetricising the seemingly inbalanced equations that should have described
the behaviour of particles in some set of experiments; the 'bit' added on to
balance the equations and make them nice and symmetrical again represented a
'new' particle, with such and such properties, the neutrino. Thus the
ever-ongoing-neverending 'discovery' and proliferation of new subatomic
particles that were supposed to be the integral fundamental building blocks
of mattergy.
Nope, it simply won't do to simplistically identify be-ing with any being
(whether 'god' or 'the cosmos' or whatever). We, of course, can talk of the
be-ing of god, be-cause be-ing [is] always the be-ing of some being (or
beings, or all beings, or even no beings). I do wish you would entertain
singing (out of tune so far) some other tune on this list. It also does no
good to your 'cause' to rope in dodgy goons like Helga Zepp-LaRouche and
no-clue theologians like Lehmann, nevermind the barrel-loads of nazis and
neo-nazis that you quote in support; why do you take these shits' words for
anything, especially given your attitude towards them? You become their
mouthpiece. Brilliant. J-d gods brilliant.
regards
michaelP
>From: GEVANS613@xxxxxxx
>To: heidegger-dialognet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: For *Being* aka *GOD.* Michael, Fred and Suleyman
>Date: Mon, Oct 18, 2004, 12:20 pm
> In a message dated 18/10/2004 10:51:52 GMT Standard Time,
> michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> Dear Michael.
> Just to make it easier on my typing-fingers - If you don't mind I will
> consign this letter to Fred and Suleyman too - for the same subject
[substitution
> of Being* for *God*] is dealt with in their messages too.
>
>
> Michael:
> Jud claims victory:
>
> Jud [previously] I KNEW I was on the right track!
>
>
> Michael:
> [but you have never openly questioned it, so you didn't need any validation
> from Helga Zepp-LaRouche]
>
> Jud:
> *Openly questioned WHAT Michael? [caps for emphasis only]
> That I was on the right track? I COURSE I knew I had got Heidegger sussed
> as a closet religo-freak.
> As soon as I had finished the opening chapter of the Grundbegriffe I could
> see that.
> What I am referring to is Zepp-Larouche's insight that if you execute a
> *find and replace* operation of Being and Time, and replace the word *Being*
> with *God* the thing reads almost exactly the same. This is what
> anti-religious assholes like *waz-iz-name* have never grasped — and that is
why he was
> so laughable in his hate-ridden diatribes against Anthony. The laugh is that
> he is more religious than Anthony!
>
> _http://www.schillerinstitute.com/fid_91-96/951_hzl_heidegger.html_
> (http://www.schillerinstitute.com/fid_91-96/951_hzl_heidegger.html)
>
>
> What is most outrageous about this [what? mP], is that Lehmann treats
> Heidegger in the most objective and positive manner, as if nothing were wrong.
He
> says, finally, "The destruction of traditional theology through Heidegger was
> shocking, obviously; but his conviction that ontology could not be based in
> the traditional theological form, he had already said very clearly in Being
> and Time." So, he does not find this very objectionable, that theology does
not
> have to explain ontology; and, he says, all the questioning of Heidegger is
> in vain, if one substitutes for the word Being, the word God.
>
> Michael:
> Well, this is worth putting in a certain con-text (not fully, I need to read
> the whole thing -- soon) somewhat left out in the rain by Jud: the whole
> paragraph above is not written by Jud, but one Helga Zepp-LaRouche in an
article
> for the Schiller Institute website, reprinted from the Spring 1995 issue of
> FIDELIO Magazine, entitled 'Today's Conservative Revolution and the Ideology
> of the Nazis': The Case of Martin Heidegger'.
>
> Jud:
> That is PRECISELY why I provided the URL. I have also published her article
> on the Anti-Heidegger section and the Athenaeum Library of my site about a
> year ago, but it was only when I revisited it that I was reminded of the
> *God-Being* tie-up and switch whizz. I see it all now. When Heidegger
confessed
> to being a *theologion* — [rather than a philosopher IMO] HE MEANT IT! But
> what an INCONSISTENT theologian he was!
> First, in the *Introduction to Metaphysics,* which first hit the Nazi
> presses in 1944 as the Allied tanks rolled ashore in Normandy, he stated that
> *Being* might well be WITHOUT entities [wrap your acrobatic shins around that
one]
> and that would mean without *Dasein* as one such entity.
> Later however our doughty theologian rewrites creation and changed it to the
> doctrine that *Being* NEVER IS WITHOUT entities.
> Another example of his utter ontological confusion is his view of *language.
> In B and T he is at pains to inform the PITS [people in the street] that
> *language is no more that *utteredness* of discourse or speech, later however
> he rushes to say that *language* is that out of which such an individual
> speaks and upon which he depends in multiple ways that need describing and
the
> mention of *discourse* drops out of view and is replaced again by the word
> *language.*
> Now comes the REAL crackpottery — for a *word* becomes that *first brings a
> thing into its is* — as if Auntie Annie's fur coat in the wardrobe doesn't
> exist until Heidegger mouths the magic abracadabra words *fur-coat.* In the
> bowels of Martin Luther - can we call this tripe PHILOSOPHY???
>
> Michael:
> She begins her article with:
>
> "Martin Heidegger is generally known among professional philosophers in
> academic circles. Many believe that he is the greatest thinker of this
century.
> Many French philosophers are convinced of it, and many even think that he is
> the greatest thinker of all time. (After having tried to read him, I can tell
> you that that is a little bit difficult to imagine, because what he has
> produced is an incredible amount of gobbledygook.) His work is a symptom of
our
> present-day confusion"
>
> So, the revelation concerning Lehmann, presumably a Catholic theologian, and
> his thinking concerning Heidegger, is revealed by one (IMO) who is too lazy
> and ignorant wrt Heidegger to even find anything other than "an incredible
> amount of gobbledygook" in his writing.
>
> Jud:
> The gobbledygook is ultimately understandable — but it remains childish
> jargon in the sense that though it is very *babyish,* it is deliberately
dense,
> like a precociously aware, but language-deficient child, charging about the
> nursery mouthing repetitious, meandering, inanities and chalk-boarding the
most
> badly written text I have ever encountered in all my life as a reader [and
> I've had nine children of my own.]
>
> Michael:
> This absence of any genuine critical stance (one that would bother to read
> and re-read the works of philosophy as something necessarily difficult and
> possibly confusing, especially for those with singularly diminished
imagination
> and hermeneutical skill or even desire; one that has always already set out
> to add her two-pennies'-worth to the Heidegger-bashing industry). Given her
> uttermost present-day confusion
> (blinded by the {IMO} jealous hatred of Heidegger's thinking, presumably:
> it's too difficult for me to understand, thus it must be rubbish out to
insult
> me, thus I must bash it in order to retain my pride in my self and have
> something to say at all costs), it is perhaps reasonable that I find her
> characterisation of Heidegger through Lehmann in the quote above difficult to
> understand. In particular, the last sentence:
>
> Jud:
> You have missed the whole point Michael, [although I do have some sympathy
> with your criticism of Zepp-LaRouche]
> I am not particularly interested in what she has to say about Heidegger
> other that her noticing the prudent observation of the theologically -minded
> Lehmann which amounts to the *revelation* that *Being* is just a codeword
> for God.
>
> Michael:
> "and, he [Lehmann] says, all the questioning of Heidegger is in vain, if one
> substitutes for the word Being, the word God."
>
> What is this supposed to be saying? [a genuine question]
>
> Jud:
> As I say above — *Being* is just a codeword for God. Which is so OBVIOUS
> that even someone with double-bottle-tops for lenses should be able to see
it.
>
> Michael:
> I find it extremely difficult, in my 'present-day confusion', to render
> significance to the statements of a Heidegger 'critic' who begins the way she
> does with the statement that all Heidegger wrote was gobbledegook -- one
> presumes she must have gobbled up most of it in order to be able to make such
a
> knowledgable claim, but I would hazard a guess that she did not, apart from
some
> kind of predatorial key-word speed-reading {i. e., not reading at all} of the
> already foretold juicy-bits.
>
>
> Jud:
> Like all who dip their pens in the cloaca of the Heidegger Industry - she
> has to earn a crust I suppose. ;-)
>
>
> Michael:
> If Heidegger indeed writes nothing but masses of nonsense, then why bother
> with his thinking as if it were significant? this surely makes dunces of such
> 'critics' (to be so bothering with self-claimed nonsense).
>
> Jud:
> People worry about its effects on society. One may think government [any
> government] policy is *masses of damaging nonsense* - but that does not say
that
> the damaging nonsense should be ignored. This is how Anti-Heideggerians
> feel about the Heideggerian zombification of western philosophy.
>
>
> Michael:
> As for the business of substitutions for be-ing: why consider any such
> substitutions? Be-ing, if it is anything, is not a thing, is not any thing,
>
> Jud:
> Neither is *God* — but think of all the TROUBLE the notion causes - First
> the synagogues are vandalised and set on fire then five churches attacked
> yesterday — what happens tomorrow — the skinheads will be attacking
British
> mosques next and then the balloon will go up? Evil just CANNOT be ignored.
We
> CANNOT just look the other way or sit on the fence — an occupation which
you
> have [in good faith I am sure — but naively] elevated to some kind of moral
> highground.
>
> Michael:
> [referring to *Being*] ..and thus metaphorisation is denied it; be-ing is
> the uniquely unique and thus its 'word', "be-ing" can not be the name of any
> thing, it being the very possibility for naming and metaphorisation. Of
course,
> one can play the game of cheery substitutions such as "god", "cause",
> "consciousness", "spirit", etc, etc: but that is just unserious wholly
metaphysical
> play. Whatever game Helga Zepp-LaRouche is playing, it is hard to take
> seriously her (obviously pre-determined) conclusions and amassed arguments
> (although I could try if anyone wants...) when all she has 'read' of
Heidegger, is
> masses of "gobbledegook" amounting to "a symptom of our present-day
confusion"
> [perhaps read "*her* present-day confusion"].
>
> Jud:
> Your constant plain that the gerundial freak *Being* is *untouchable* in an
> Eliot Ness sort of way] is just a cop-out. You continually refer to
> something which you openly admit has the same status as a metaphor — but
the whole
> POINT of my posting is to inform those whose bottle-tops are just TOO thick
to
> see through that *Being* is a METAPHOR FOR *GOD.*
>
>
> Which is EXACTLY what I suggested years ago!
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---