Interrupting this between Jud and Rene; Jud remarks:
> The ontological *U-turn* I brought up today — which was completely ignored
> by Michael
> [yes, a *follow-my-leader_Heideggerian not distinguished by your type of
> more independent: *think-for-myself- ontology] but nevertheless, one would
> assume that a complete turnaround on Heidegger's part would have disturbed
the
> still pond of his misunderstanding a TINY bit and caused at least a cognitive
> ripple or two? The result? A letter about my method of emphasis which every
> damn Jack and Jill on the list knows is for emphasis only BECAUSE I HAVE SAID
SO
> - SO MANY TIMES.
Jud, the business of the shifts and turns in Heidegger's thinking over 50
years is an extremely well-known and debated set of issues and explicitly
and densely debated over that entire period. In this sense it is not so much
that I ignored it or am not philosophically troubled by it as that this is
not for me a good opportunity to bring up the business of the Heideggerian
'turns', especially in discussion with one who regards the very seriousness
of such thinking and its ways and byways as the very essence of engaging in
gibberish about gibberish. To openly discuss the 'turns' one would have to
engage Heidegger's thinking extremely seriously and knowledgably, neither of
which fit your instincts and comportments as evidenced on this list. This is
nothing to do with being critical or uncritical; this is to do with taking
the topic (of the 'turns') with a high degree of commitment and cannot be
done in an atmosphere of ridicule, tin-pot opining and the 'virile'
comportment of head-banging those genuinely interested (and disturbed) by
Heidegger's thinking. I do find the issue of the meaning of be-ing highly
difficult, challenging and at times seriously distressing, but I will not
discuss this issue which is at the heart of my interest in Heidegger's
thinking with one determined to simplistically destroy all vestige of
geunine questioning, substituting ridicule and abuse and trial by the
Jud(ge). Your characterisation of most others on this list as brainwashed
cultic cretins before any debate even begins is not a great incentive for
continuing any genuine discussion with you for members of this list; it's
almost intimidation, which I believe is one of your long-since declared
aims; and I am not talking here of your incendiary ad homs or the infantile
heidegger-was-a-nazi ranting mantras we've so long since had to put up with.
It's your basic comportment to which I'm referring which sits there in
advance of your typing a single word whenever anyone wants to actually write
on a topic concerning Heidegger and his thinking, because some people on
this list actually are interested and want to learn from and discuss with
others the object of their interest. Effectively you come close to (but not
all the way to) being a guttersnipe troll in this respect.
For the record (and I've said this so many times) I do not regard myself as
a Heideggerian, neither do I follow any "leader" (although I do try to
follow a lead: genuine originality is exceedingly rare; ungenuine
'originality' is only a concern for drones; "thinking for oneself" is
perhaps always a conversation and not the pregnant pre-occupation of
ego-maniac bullies). And, the humourously meant piece on your capitalisation
technique was not a response to the previous piece (that's why the changed
subject in the email header); I still suggest that your emphasis is not just
that but highly charged; you deny rhetorically that it is any rhetorical
technique when you employ it. Your textual overdeveloped self-confidence
shatters in the face of the melodramatic shrieking you constantly perform to
hammer the point home. If we were in the presence of real genius this could
be forgiven, even celebrated, but in the absence of it your speech
constitutes a constant headache and an embarrassment (not of riches).
You have never in my recollection ever asked a question publicly for which
you didn't always already have the simplistic answer to. Without heartfelt
questioning, there is no philosophy, only noise: and that annoys and
sickens. What an achievement!
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> The ontological *U-turn* I brought up today — which was completely ignored
> by Michael
> [yes, a *follow-my-leader_Heideggerian not distinguished by your type of
> more independent: *think-for-myself- ontology] but nevertheless, one would
> assume that a complete turnaround on Heidegger's part would have disturbed
the
> still pond of his misunderstanding a TINY bit and caused at least a cognitive
> ripple or two? The result? A letter about my method of emphasis which every
> damn Jack and Jill on the list knows is for emphasis only BECAUSE I HAVE SAID
SO
> - SO MANY TIMES.
Jud, the business of the shifts and turns in Heidegger's thinking over 50
years is an extremely well-known and debated set of issues and explicitly
and densely debated over that entire period. In this sense it is not so much
that I ignored it or am not philosophically troubled by it as that this is
not for me a good opportunity to bring up the business of the Heideggerian
'turns', especially in discussion with one who regards the very seriousness
of such thinking and its ways and byways as the very essence of engaging in
gibberish about gibberish. To openly discuss the 'turns' one would have to
engage Heidegger's thinking extremely seriously and knowledgably, neither of
which fit your instincts and comportments as evidenced on this list. This is
nothing to do with being critical or uncritical; this is to do with taking
the topic (of the 'turns') with a high degree of commitment and cannot be
done in an atmosphere of ridicule, tin-pot opining and the 'virile'
comportment of head-banging those genuinely interested (and disturbed) by
Heidegger's thinking. I do find the issue of the meaning of be-ing highly
difficult, challenging and at times seriously distressing, but I will not
discuss this issue which is at the heart of my interest in Heidegger's
thinking with one determined to simplistically destroy all vestige of
geunine questioning, substituting ridicule and abuse and trial by the
Jud(ge). Your characterisation of most others on this list as brainwashed
cultic cretins before any debate even begins is not a great incentive for
continuing any genuine discussion with you for members of this list; it's
almost intimidation, which I believe is one of your long-since declared
aims; and I am not talking here of your incendiary ad homs or the infantile
heidegger-was-a-nazi ranting mantras we've so long since had to put up with.
It's your basic comportment to which I'm referring which sits there in
advance of your typing a single word whenever anyone wants to actually write
on a topic concerning Heidegger and his thinking, because some people on
this list actually are interested and want to learn from and discuss with
others the object of their interest. Effectively you come close to (but not
all the way to) being a guttersnipe troll in this respect.
For the record (and I've said this so many times) I do not regard myself as
a Heideggerian, neither do I follow any "leader" (although I do try to
follow a lead: genuine originality is exceedingly rare; ungenuine
'originality' is only a concern for drones; "thinking for oneself" is
perhaps always a conversation and not the pregnant pre-occupation of
ego-maniac bullies). And, the humourously meant piece on your capitalisation
technique was not a response to the previous piece (that's why the changed
subject in the email header); I still suggest that your emphasis is not just
that but highly charged; you deny rhetorically that it is any rhetorical
technique when you employ it. Your textual overdeveloped self-confidence
shatters in the face of the melodramatic shrieking you constantly perform to
hammer the point home. If we were in the presence of real genius this could
be forgiven, even celebrated, but in the absence of it your speech
constitutes a constant headache and an embarrassment (not of riches).
You have never in my recollection ever asked a question publicly for which
you didn't always already have the simplistic answer to. Without heartfelt
questioning, there is no philosophy, only noise: and that annoys and
sickens. What an achievement!
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---