In a message dated 19/10/2004 19:58:53 GMT Standard Time, crotuca@xxxxxxxxx
writes:
John Harvey
Suley has a point, since Heidegger did not affirm but
rather denied that being (Sein) is. He said rather
that the proper expression is "Es gibt Sein."
Ordinarily one would translate this idiomatically as
"There is being," but Heidegger is stressing the
literal meaning "It gives being."
--- Samael Lightbringer <god_samael@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Jud:
Note:
Caps for emphasis only as usual.
For Heidegger *Being* is an ineffable X which allows, avails and facilitates
the *uncovering [appearance] of an entity.
One could render it thus: *
There doesn't exist an X [*Being*] such that it doesn't exist as Jud's
waterglass, but doesn't exist as the *existence* of Jud's existing waterglass.
So **Being* is nothing more that the activity of a person's brain as he or
she observes and object - just an old medieval term exhumed and revivifies to
describe THE HUMAN ACT OF APPREHENSION. IN OTHER WORDS *BEING* IS NO MORE
THAN BEGINNER'S PSYCHOLOGY DRESSED UP AS *PHILOSOPHY*
Husserl was the ontological pathfinder who led the way, and Heidegger
followed and acquiesced that the *Being* [Meaning: *the *existence*] of all
entities [say the waterglass on my desk before me] lies in the sense we gain of
them in our understanding. This is an outrageous and juvenile ego-centric
transcendental subjectivism.
In other words — the way I sense — the way I apprehend the waterglass —
with the sensors of my eyes as I regard it, and the sensors of my epidermis as I
lift it thus, is the *BEING* of the waterglass which *allows* the water
glass to *appear*
Well I've got MORE news for you — objects DON'T *appear TO us — we exist in
a spatial position where WE apprehend THEM. My waterglass is INCAPABLE of
DOING anything, whether it be *appearing* or *disapearing.* Waterglasses just
exist as insensate objects wherever they happen to be.
Waterglasses are bereft of deliberation and intentionality and the ability
to Do anything - any action whatsoever is not on the ontological *task-menu*
of any insensate object. Insensate objects like my car or my breadknife only
DO things or *appear* out of the knife-draw or the garage if I intend to get
them and use them for cutting bread or driving to town.
So *being* hasn't got ANYTHING to do with entities and the *existence* of
entities - it is all to do with the apprehension, appraisal, assessment and
estimational activity of OUR OWN BRAINS. What then is the *Being* of the
waterglass when it is carried to the kitchen and lies unregarded and unnoticed
all night, until the time in the early morning that my wife's rubber-gloved
hands immerse it in hot soapy water?
Does it cease to have a *Being* because it is not the centre of someone's
attention? Does *Being* petulently *retreat* if it is ignored?
Do objects sneak away and *hide* if we don't play with them? If so then,
*Being* hasn't got the universality that Heidegger claims. If *Being* is
dependent upon the regard of humans who all regard or view things in different
ways, [some half-blind - some colour-blind - some with double-vision, does this
mean that *Being* is also duplicated, made to change colour, or become
indistinct?
*Being* is not then a universal phenomena, but it is *singleton dependant,*
{an *individual capricious phenomena] and subject to the whims of the
sensorial circumstances of the entity's observer. What is the *being* of a glass
observed and held by a drunken alcoholic — what is the *Being* of a banana
looked at by a person with Alzheimer's disease? The whole notion is so
incompetently and shallowly thought through that it wouldn't pass muster in a Boy
Scout's discussion group.
No, the waterglass exists on my desk and it exists alone in the kitchen in
the dark. It exists in the sink of hot, soapy water.
It is present in the world whether it is abandoned in a forest after a
picnic, it is present on my desk after being recovered and brought home again.
It has no *presence* in my home, and it has no *absence* when it is not in
my home — it is simply present wherever it happens to be at any given time.
The whole idea of Heidegger's filched from Husserl and modified is an
anthropocentric joke on the level of the thinking of some hardly educated Black
Forest peasant.
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 ---