In a message dated 18/10/2004 14:20:46 GMT Standard Time,
michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
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".
Dear Michael:
Subtleties! That turn was no *subtelty* — no *fine tuning* of the
ontological distributor it was a COMPLETE REVERSAL-
a complete re-engining of the existence — presence configuration.
Michael:
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;
Jud:
Why? Reasons please. According to Gannon it is possible that the ancient
Jews considered God to be *Being* anyway and he etymologises
that YHWH can be traced to the name for *Nature.* Heidegger was such a
squirrel with other peoples nuts that he may well have pinched the idea from
there, although my own gut feeling remains that it was his way of sticking his
tongue out at the catholic Church which spurned him. [as he no doubt saw it
when he pulled out in a huff]
Michael:
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.
Jud:
I appreciate your newly discovered rhetorical skills and turn of phrase,
which is on the up again after your summer season of discontent,
but if your precious metaphorical *being* is so illusive and
unspeakable/unsayable as you claim — why bother to even NAME it.
Why not keep silent about it like St.Witt said [of something else] A
denotatum is an ACTUAL object referred to by a linguistic expression, and designatum
is something whether EXISTING OR NOT that is referred to by a linguistic
expression — but what the hell is *Being* if it is CAPABLE of being named but
not described? Perhaps a illusionatum or a metanatum?
Of course I can describe the word with a single word - EXISTENCE which is
another utterly meaningless word [because it doesn't exist — only that which
exists exists.]
Michael:
The theologians desperately want (like you) to find an identity between
Heidegger's be-ing and god,
Jud:
But for entirely different reasons of course - and I don't WANT to find it -
as far as I am concerned I have ALREADY found it,
and whatever you or I think about Saint Lehmann at least he has spotted
something that went right over YOUR head.
Michael:
even an absent god,
Jud:
The notion *an absent God* is just another metaphysical cop-out, for the
implication is that he exists, but he just happens to be *out of town* at the
moment. He'll be back of course... for *only a God can save us now*...well
strike me pink and call me Charlie! I can swear that the little gesticulating
Austrian on the platform with the toothbrush moustache and the fallen forelock
has an amazing presence and Godlike visage...Could he be the Messiah I
wonder...?
Michael:
and, of course desperados tend to fit everything unfitted together albeit
uncomfortably; but does that
mean they have 'discovered' something?
Jud:
I don't think the Reverend Lehmann would take kindly to being referred to as
a *desparado* [dictionary = *desparate criminal]
Michael:
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.
Jud:
Nevertheless we have split the atom and are presently engaged in bumping
particles into each other to observe the results.
All Heidegger did was to bump people's heads together and force them to
raise their right arms in a certain salute to a certain person.
Michael:
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).
Jud:
I cannot accept this wheeze that there is a *Being* of anything whatsoever.
To me it is ontological nonsense to suppose that there is a state of being in
a state of being in a state. You could extend this silliness backwards to
infinity — like one's reflection in a hall of mirrors thus: *Being* is the
*Being* of a being being the *Being* of the *Being* the Being* of *Being, being*
of *Being... ad infinitum. It is TOTALLY ridiculous and utterly juvenile.
Michael:
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,
Jud:
Obviously you have read Lehmann which I haven't. What is so *dodgy* about
him [apart from the obvious fact that he believes in God - which is enough to
label anyone as *dodgy.*
Michael:
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?
Jud:
Heidegger was a Nazi, considered by some of his contemporaries to be the
Philosopher of Nazism, [quote available if required], so why do you so often
quote HIM in your support? It was Lehmann's observation [Being = God) that I
found interesting
not *barrel-loads of nazis and neo-nazis.* If the quotation I introduced
was by somebody who being a Nazi is therefore a *shit* — is not the Nazi
Heidegger a *shit* too? You can't have you sauerkraut and eat it Michael. ;-)
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 ---