Thus Spake Pennathustra:
Rene, given his adoption of a kind of nominalism, I think I have shown that
whilst he speaks constantly of what does not exist (what can not be
seriously predicated), that it does not exist, he constantly denies the very
ground on which he stands, because to speak of what does not exist is to
predicate (does not exist) what can not seriously be predicated (what does
not exist).
Jud:
No, Michael as usual you are not paying attention. Your mind wanders,
perhaps to a vision of Operatic multiple heidegger - dressed in stocking and
suspenders
a la that well-known Broadway Show whose name I can only whisper,
having forsworn the word from my lips.
*Springtime with XXXXXX* if that rings a note on the Glockenspiel for you?
Whenever I have need to refer to the designatum **Being* it is always
accompanied by *scare quotes*
Do you know what those are Michael? Any idea of their function?
Linguists sometimes employ a technique they call "inverted reconstruction".
The phrase in quote marks. which can be asterisks, or inverted commas, or
parenthesis marks, or any such marks used to enclose textual material is not a
quotation from anyone in particular, but merely a term which is used by some
people in this case, a nominalist linguist. What the writer is doing here is
distancing himself from the term in isolates. That is, he's saying: "Look,
that's what they call it. I'm not responsible for this term." Very often there
is a suggestion of disapproval. Get it - or do you need some more
background? Let me know if you can't grasp what the explanation means..
Michael:
All the time employing a 'restricted' version of be-ing (exists)
whilst claiming it is either nonsense (there is no such thing -- ironically,
all heideggerians would agree since be-ing is not a being) or something
familiar, disguised (the recent 'discovery' that be-ing is god; a god with
any other name would smell as bad) or a chimerical invention of heidegger's
that changes shape in the inventor's 'head' (since be-ing is never a thing
and thus not metaphorisable, it cannot be the same as it is, the perfectly
non-identical, that which differs from itself {heraclitus},
Jud:
I think I am old enough now and have read enough Heidegger to grasp what he
meant by *Being* Michael - and I am not so stupid enough to think that *Being*
is some kind of entity - fer Chrissakes the notion is simple and stupid
enough for a child to grasp.
Michael:
but The Nominalist merely sees this as the inconsistent heidegger's failure
to be
constant). But even in ludicrously claiming such as the identity of be-ing
and god he takes (as a nominalist) his notion of be-ing too seriously: i.e.,
since it does not exist it should not be taken seriously and thus either
claiming it is the same as something else (god) or claiming it is nothing
(does not exist) he assumes a position whereby it is possible to predicate
be-ing and thus admits that one may seriously talk of that which one should
not talk seriously about. In these and many ways Nom treads on his own tail
in trying to move forward.
Jud:
Look...I can see that you are struggling... and I am sure that I am not the
only one to notice.
I am not claiming that your silly-billy *Being* is the same as something
else (god) or claiming it is nothing
(does not exist) for a notion is not a something and a non-something cannot
be swopped for another non-something
but it can be used referentially as a *metaphor8 [courtesy of M.P] for some
other notion [i.e.* ideation* created by the human brain.
or in my terms which to you are ungraspable - as an existential modality of
the holism whilst it thinks *Being* = *God.*
Heidegger's constancy or lack of it - whether his twistings and turnings
form a unity or whatever are actually incidental, for which ever way he twists
and turns
the ideas are still as loony as ever - *Variations on a Loony Tunes* by the
Tom and Gerry of philosophical fun. ;-)
I've been over this time and time again, but it refuses to sink into your
brain. Watch my lips:
Nominalists have no desire to *ban* or *eliminate* abstractions from the
English language, but only to point out the ontological pitfalls and risks when
one uses then thoughtlessly Geddit? Perhaps you can cut and paste the sentence
- print it off and stick it [no - NOT there!] above your monitor - because
remembering it appears to be some kind of a challenge for you?
Michael to Rene:
Rene, I catch the drift of seeing the widerville of jud as a gift (as I have
suggested several times before, and without irony, mostly...) and the point
of not being offended (why should be offended by what one regards as rubbish
or the result of an implacable process?). But, how many hundreds of times
does one have to witness this before one can accept/receive the gift as gift
(and then let it alone having taken on the given as given)? How many drops
of rain have to fall before one notices and accepts that "it is raining"?
What "rains"? The "rain". The "rain" "rains". The gift gives. Jud jud(der)sThis has been abundantly clear from the summer of 2000 onwards. I can not
yet accept that the juddering is any kind of example of the raging
discordance (of art and truth). The rain rains, what else can it do? The Jud
judders, what else can it do? Is that it?
Jud:
Now you know how I FEEL Michael when my head become muzzy with your constant
repetitions.
At leasy I try to vary my approach - introduce fresh views of Heideggerian
topics drawn from his writings.
BUT wait - this is the MYSTERIOUS THING when I DO introduce interesting
topics [interesting enough at least to thinkers like
Jan and Stuart, you fall strangely silent. No attempt from you to comment
upon or defend the many ontological inconsistencies
[concerning his OWN terms and doctrines I mean] Yet if an opportunity arises
for you to indulge in an ad hom session - you manage to write reams and
reams.
To be honest I miss Malcolm Heidy's *gift* to me] most of all - for at least
he was lucid, clever and humorous and capable of discussing Heidegger
amongst other things, even though I was quite aware that at bottom he did not place
much importance of what I was saying.
Jud:
I might ask the same question regarding you Michael - for you are a rain-man
without a doubt.
What was the last time you made a contribution of any importance? And who is
it on this list who winds me up most
and interferes [by jumping in] to break up any conversations that appear to
be at least civil and interesting?
Why do you keep doing it? Is it for attention, and you don't like me
ignoring you and talking to others? I just cannot make you out.
Michael:
Yes, but there is more than one way to leave (by not taking the exit door,
rather by sitting quietly or by waiting...). Those who have passed on are
perhaps more courageous? Widerville is ubiquitous (no?); why do we need the
beast here? [genuine question]
Jud:
That may be the best option for you - at least we who are left might be able
to talk for a change, for if I am REALLY honest most
of my vituperation is tangentially aimed at YOU in particular, and NOT at
the list [or Heidegger] in general. You are an unthinking thorn in my side - a
nagging uncomprehending, inconvenience, like a crazy out-of-control maybug
that flitters and fumbles into your face and brushes against the lantern of
illumination disrupting conversation and concentration. Why not take a breather —
do some reading - lurk awhile - it would be sad to see you depart
permanently of course for even Melolontha melolontha have a right to flitter their
piece on life's statge once in a while. You seem quite happy while I am
spouting *Boo yah! Heidy was an X" stuff - it is only when I start unpicking what
the man actually wrote *philosophically* that you know [and worse - know that
everybody else knows] that you are out of your depth, and start your old
disruptive tricks.
Rene: What a chance to become honest toward oneself, one should be grateful
Michael:
One is. But constantly? For ever?
Jud:
Why speak so disparagingly of honesty Michael? Do you see it as an *on-off*
thing.
Why not become honest in the long term sense that I believe Rene is alluding
to - not *part-time*
veracity to suit the circumstances?
Michael:
I think I understand to some extent what
you say so gracefully, so delicately: when I witness widerville as
represented on the box, it can arouse the same in my response; I can become
momentarily a rednecked slimeball screaming screaming, and I am almost
immediately seized with a horrid recognition of the judders in myself
(almost a suitable case for suicide), only for this unwelcome insight to be
replaced with a distancing and rationalisation, etc.
Jud:
I am glad that you sometimes recognise what you are and the persona you
project - but don't kid yourself Michael
this is no judderian widerville this IS MICHAEL in all his psychic
nakedness. 'Fraid you've got to learn to live with yourself Michael.
Nuff for now.
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 ---