In a message dated 18/10/2004 20:24:53 GMT Standard Time,
michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
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.
Jud:
That should provide more of a challenge to you and at least you know where
you stand. With your fellow Heideggerians if usually turns into a slanging
match with the loss of yet another aficionado. At least with me you know that
your usual ad hom will not result in the loss of another member?
Michael:
To openly discuss the 'turns' one would have to
engage Heidegger's thinking extremely seriously and knowledgeably, neither of
which fit your instincts and comportments as evidenced on this list.
Jud:
But are you capable of *thinking extremely seriously and knowledgeably?*
usually when I introduce serious aspects of his *philosophy* you parry them
off by introducing ad hom — 'tis something I pointed out to dear old Nunc
many moons ago ...and do you know what...I got a strong impression that he
agreed with me...
Today's example of the *U-turn* speaks volumes — you spends a long time
typing paragraph after paragraph of ad hom — yet are unwilling to spend your time
fruitfully in discussing your hero's accomplishments or failures?
Michael:
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.
Jud:
I have told you over and over again until I am blue in the face that it is
impossible
for a thinking materialist to GIVE *committment* to such a person as
Heidegger. It IS possible to pick through his output and try to make sense of them
but it does NOT presuppose any *committment* and where ridicule is seen to be
appropriate what is the POINT of being inauthentic and pretending that the
dross is meaningful?
Michael:
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).
Jud:
But you have already stated in the past that Being* has no meaning, doesn't
exist other than a s *metaphor*, etc., so why the sudden U-turn where *Being*
has magically become *meanigful* again?
I'm not tormenting you - I am genuinely interested in the way your mind [or
should I say brain] works.
Michael:
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 ohms or the infantile
heidegger-was-a-nazi ranting mantras we've so long since had to put up with
Jud:
I have NEVER characterised others on this list as*brainwashed cultic cretins*
the only time the word *cretin* has been used on this list is when the
list-alcoholic analphabetically called me a *Cretan* [sic]
obviously the town-drunk has been under the impression that I am a Greek
islander. Oh, and of course YOUR own needless introduction of the word in your
lines above.
It was YOU who accused Zeppe of being part a crowd of nazis [or words to
that effect not me. I have no knowledge concerning if the lady IS a member of
the Nazi Party or not [I doubt it] but Heidegger CERTAINLY WAS - and a very
ACTIVE member too.
Michael:
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.
Jud:
I could accuse YOU of exactly the same behaviour Michael - your messages
ALWAYS consist of a barely hidden venom which spills forth the moment I
mention some aspect of your master which you can't handle. Result - you
turn to ad hom rather than argue you position.
Reason? You are INCAPABLE of holding your own because basically you don't
know enough about Heidegger and just play the game which Rene despises of a
blinkered *Follow my Leader*
Michael:
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;
Jud:
THAT has got to be the biggest joke of the year - YOU not a Heideggerian.
Ever thought of Music Hall?
Tell that to the marines - if you can find one that hasn't been blown to
pieces by some *Being-mad* transcendentalist.
Michael:
"thinking for oneself" is perhaps always a conversation and not the pregnant
pre-occupation of
ego-maniac bullies).
Jud:
Speak for yourself Michael - your bullying and constant ad hom never stops
me from thinking laterally and never will.
Michael:
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);
Jud:
The *humour* was a thin veneer to clumsily conceal your true motivation,
which was the stiletto-slur that my caps are NOT emphasis — but actually
*shouting.* The reason I employ caps for your information is because of the bizarre
nature of the way the spoons server transforms the British keyboard output
into strange AE-type symbols, and the fact that I find the _example_ method
extremely ugly — capisce?
MIchael:
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.
Jud:
Oh my God - there he goes again!
Michael:
Your textual overdeveloped self-confidence shatters in the face of the
melodramatic shrieking you constantly perform to
hammer the point home.
Jud:
There IS no *melodramic Shrieking* Michael - YOU are the list's shrieker - I
am always remind of the Munch bridge-scream when you lose control as you are
doing now.
Michael:If we were in the presence of real genius this could
be forgiven, even celebrated,
Jud:
But your *genius* is Dead Michael dead as the doornail in St Martin's Church.
So you are willing to forgive his Nazi rantings and ravings — so what? Tell
me something else new.
Michael:
but in the absence of it your speech
constitutes a constant headache and an embarrassment (not of riches).
Jud:
You are embarrassed because you are out of your depth Michael - you are
struggling to keep up
You haven't got what it takes - OK you are a creature of your environment —
so what?
Michael:
You have never in my recollection ever asked a question publicly for which
you didn't always already have the simplistic answer to.
Jud:
Why ask needless questions for the sake of asking them?
I have Google if I need information. What can you tell me that I cannot
find for myself.
I have my Heidegger books - I've got eyes in my head. I've got a library —
not very good — but they can order books,
What KIND of *questions* do you want me to ask and why?
Michael:
Without heartfelt
questioning, there is no philosophy, only noise: and that annoys and
sickens. What an achievement!
Jud:
Michael I' ve spent 3 long years questioning Heidegger and Heideggerians -
reading everything I can get my hands on about the cove - pro-him and
against-him. Now you trot out the same old boring mantra that everybody mentions
and laughs at concerning Heidegger.
If you don't accept what Heidegger says — they just say *read more* or
*approach it with more of an open mind* or *try genuine questioning* blah, blah,
blah. Come on Michael - its just the sort of stuff the Jehovah's Witnesses
come out with when you tell them to piss off.
Michael - you are an intelligent man — just try to rip your mind away from
this control crap that has taken over your mind — just for a brief moment of
mental freedom. You used to be interesting at one time - I visited some lists
you used to haunt in you PM days - what HAPPENED to you?
Can't you SEE that you are chanting the mantra of a cult? Can't you SEE that
you are a victim trapped in a spider's web of casuistry?
Regards,
Jud
Personal Website:
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
E-mail Discussion List:
nominalism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
��Ҷ��2)�Y����i�z{l�騽����Ơzf��������mi�z{l����z����+�/��֥���֜�g������+-���J��Ȧy�������,y�0JZ����j�j[^�v����V���w/���ױ�����~�&�+-�� ���)ej��*����