Jud, a minor point: the below is hard to read with all those weird
characters all over the place; did you use some other prog than usual to
produce the text (perhaps a wordpro like Word)?
Major point: from the below and countless other exchanges I recognise (and
have long recognised but hope intervenes...) an abyss that seperates us (not
as people as such but as 'thinkers') and I no longer have any desire to
attempt to bridge the gap; let difference reign. However you characterise me
(or borrow such characterisation from rene, perhaps mistakenly?), I shall
endeavour not to even look at your missives, nevermind respond, there being
no point.
mP
>
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
�g��� f��x(�֢��@
>
j�Zr���
>
ةj�j[^�v����
�YZ��/��"�&�yۀ
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
characters all over the place; did you use some other prog than usual to
produce the text (perhaps a wordpro like Word)?
Major point: from the below and countless other exchanges I recognise (and
have long recognised but hope intervenes...) an abyss that seperates us (not
as people as such but as 'thinkers') and I no longer have any desire to
attempt to bridge the gap; let difference reign. However you characterise me
(or borrow such characterisation from rene, perhaps mistakenly?), I shall
endeavour not to even look at your missives, nevermind respond, there being
no point.
mP
>
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)
> Discussion
>
List:
nominalism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
�g��� f��x(�֢��@
>
j�Zr���
>
ةj�j[^�v����
�YZ��/��"�&�yۀ
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---