-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens
GEVANS613@xxxxxxx
Verzonden: donderdag 21 oktober 2004 19:13
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Auntie Heidegger
Jud:
What you say is true Jan. But the average person would ask WHY did he change
his tune? Was it a sudden revelation that he had to change tack from the
hysterical garbage of the thirties and replace it with a softer version more
likely to engage the sensibiliies of the Christian west>
A cynical carreer move rather than a genuine philosophical turn? Stuart
BTW totally and uncharacteristically [he is usually pretty sharp]
underestimates the significance of the of the 1944 [ammended] intro to
*What is Metaphysics,* which was in a sense a flip-flop in the character of
a new form of introduction to certain earlier work he had originally written
on the subject before the U-turn had seen the light of day. The amended
introduction constitutes a virtually completely different ontology or
philosophy
to the one which preceded it.
Rene:
He explained it all, for who has ears. And he hid for who only have claws.
Since 1934 he had to be careful, even more after 1945. And still...
I see you start talking like the hyena's: "a different ontology" and the like
is just cra., sorry: academy (akadummy).
Jud:
I thought you referred to Heidegger as a fox? Now he is a hyna again -
perhaps he was a Romanian Shape-changer who spoke good German?
I thought Arendt called him *an old ram* - not *an old fox* anyway?
Jokes are OK as interludes - as little exercises for the rictus muscles -
but why don't you address the question properly now we've had our little laugh?
Why don't you hold the political question and the one of a Being without beings
not apart? You really mess everything up. You're with the hyena's now, and
Heidegger was the fox. You gotta keep them words together with the things baby,
or else they float wherever they're blown.
what did he have to fear concerning the ontological opposites of ONTOLOGY
MARK 1 and ONTOLOGY MARK 2?
Ontology (MARK 1) Beings featured as a NON-REQUIREMENT of *Being*
Ontology (MARK 2) *Being* featured as ALWAYS being accompanied by beings.
If *Being* is supposed to be *that which reveals itself in the process of
perceiving beings* [the process of *Object Givenness*] - how can there be
*Being* if there are no beings to perceive or be perceived?
Your assumption is invalid. Why do you bring this totally irrelevant quote?
Jud:
(earlier]
ONTOLOGY (A) *Being* might well be WITHOUT entities. Now in this version,
*Being,* which he offers as being the *existence* of an entiy/entities
no
can be a part of reality [or be a *metaphor* for the *being* of an entity in
the wise words of List-Guru Michael Pennamacoor] or even if we accept the more
obtuse *fall-back* position of *Being* as *object givenness* how in the name of
God-Almighty could *Being* be without entities if *Being* was a constituent
corollary of the *object givenness* or be the *Being* of beings. If *Being*
is the *Being* of beings, then a half-pissed Malay seaman in a Kuala Lumpan
drinking den could tell you that *Being* couldn't be, or even not be *Being*
in circumstances where there were no beings to be the *being* of.
all irrelevant, and we haven't moved a bit. We still only have Being, of which
was said, that it 'is' without beings, a riddle. You have only taken the opportunity
to make silly jokes, and be the only laugher. Beings (jokes) without being (humour)
Rene:
When he first writes, that there is Being without beings, what he means
is: there is Being (Beyng), that is: not the metaphysical Being of beings,
and in THAT sense 'without' beings.
Hey, from where comes this light suddenly?
Oh, it was me...
Jud:
Please don't evade the question.
WHAT????
Again.
WHAT???
*If *Being* is supposed to be that which reveals itself in the process of
perceiving beings [the process of *Object Givenness*
Now i've said more than once now: don't touch that, baby Jud
- how can there be
*Being* if there are no beings to perceive or be perceived?*
Are you suggesting that there are TWO KINDS of *Being*
(A) The sort of *Being* for which the presence of beings is unnessessary for
its *uncovering?*
(B) The sort of *Being* for which the presence of beings is nessessary for
its *uncovering?*
Detailed answer with evidence please.
WHAT????
Rene:
But of course and lastly, as he corrected, there is never being without
beings.
Jud:
Rather *a throw-away* line isn't it Rene?
Rather not. For someone who is serious and don't want to lie to himself,
it's very serious. You have an easy exit, while i'm puzzled.
Here it is again...
* But of course and lastly, as he corrected, there is never being without
beings..*
My God! It completely transform his whole ontology! From a non-facilitating
and *independent* *Being* that can be spoken of WITHOUT the necessity of
beings, [in the manner of a *God* which could presumably be present BEFORE he
created the world and its beings} - to a *Being* which is TOTALLY DEPENDENT upon
beings in order to *disclose* itself or anything else? He certainly took
*Being* Mark 1 down an ontological peg or two didn't he!
Nothing is stable. Going a way, means reaching crossroads, and involves
Entscheidung. You can see that already from your car: sometimes you must
choose: right or left. If already a car can go opposite ways, how would
it be with harder graspable being? Or: can we really let babies decide,
about what we're talking?
I don't care how ridiculous you look, i'll stay with you for a while.
Come on Rene - time to sort yourself out! The *8th and 14th letter's* out of
the way now - I'm homing-in on his so-called *philosophy.* now.
That's what you've ALWAYS been urging me to do [access his *language* and
try and get inside his weasel brain.
He's the fox, you're the weasel. Forgotten again?
What is it with you and 'brain'? Are you thinking with your brain?
Really?
If Heidegger agrees with Husserl that the *Being* of all entities lies in
the sense we gain of them in our understanding, then that means that an
erroneous understanding of what he takes for a *fig tree* by *say* a short-sighted
old age pensioner renders it inexistent, if what is thought to be a fig-tree
is actually a new type of artificial Christmas tree manufactured from
plastic. Or are you saying that the *Being* of the plastic Christmas tree is
magically transfigured into the *Being* of a fig tree through the medium of the
misunderstanding of the mistaken old man? Or does this only happen if your
name happens to be Harry Potter?
Philosophy, is not about fig-trees.
Rene:
There's another clue, when he writes elsewhere that in the Gegnet, the hiding
sphere that is first to be found and experienced, things don't stand
(like in sub-sistere) but lie (like in keisthai, hypokeimenon).
Jud:
Pop-up-and-down like hypokeimenon you mean don't you? Reminds me of dear
old Anthony's pop-up-and-down-mountains and your very ownmost
pop-up-and-down-pepperpot - lighthouse Rene. Experience of the environment isn't spherical -
it's THE WORLD which is spherical, for it exists in a spherical form - but
a realisation of its sphericality comes at quite an advanced stage in a
child's development - for whom initially the earth is a place of flat and curved
surfaces
Arggg, there's the baby popping up! Why not a monkey? Babies and monkies have
no business in philosophy. Is there a Piaget-list, a Lorenz-list?
Anyway, what connection has this got to do with the ontological conflict
between
*Being* (Mark 1) which doesn't need beings,
and
*Being* (Mark 2) which does?
In *Being* Mark 1 there are no entities and no Gegnet, no *hiding spheres* -
and there never can be - for beings can only be uncovered by the daseinic
process of uncovering via *Object Givenness* - and as there are no objects, and
hence no *object giveness* and no *Dasein*.
This is just the refusal of any empathy, one cannot deal with it.
But we recognize it very well.
In *Being* mark 2 - the Gegnet, the hiding sphere that is first to be found
and experienced - the human baby's first experience is the mother's teat or
the wandering finger that finds its way to his/her mouth.
But you are a baby-philosopher! How embarrassing.
What nonsense is this? Philosophy for grown men or children's fairy stories?
It's you who gotta choose, baby jud.
Rene:
Either the island is BeSTANDstueck of the tourist industry, like the woods
in the wood industry, or it lies protracted in the sea. There's no real
and objective island behind these.
Jud:
An island is a land mass (smaller than a continent) that is surrounded by
water - I live on one so I should know.
Yes, that's the one. It's the one everybody agrees upon. What it is really,
is meanwhile quite unclear, but one can work with it.
I have a question: i take it that you're an Englishman. What is it that makes
you an Englishman? Just being there on that landmass? If i go there, i'm still
Dutch.
See, the slightest mentioning of things brings right away into the heaviest fog.
We get lots of tourists here but the island is still an island whilst they
are here and after they are gone.
You don't believe the *objective island of Britain exists - try walking back
home across the channel and see how far you get.
No, it's one of the Englands, the one you can get before you (vor-stellen),
on a map for instance. But at the same time you're IN England. Explain me
how you can be IN a landmass? And i don't mean stuck in it. No joking please,
i'm deadly serious.
Rene:
Jud represents the since Kant ridiculous
position of the Ding an sich. He hasn't any idea of Kant, but calls
Heidegger,
who lived among as many Kantians as Jews, childish. But listen, here he goes
again:
Jud:
I ONLY believe that *Ding an sich* [entity] exist
Oh, you only BELIEVE it? Well, with such we're not dealing here.
It's sort of: but i don't really MEAN what i say.
I hope you don't, dear Jud, or you are in big trouble.
Can't help laughing, old chap, sorry..
- for me *phenomena* are
For YOU, haha. We're talking of an-sich reality
best left to those pimply-faced ones who loll about in amusement arcades and
dotty German transcendentalists who have faith that states or processes can
be known through the senses, rather than by reasoning that it is the
entities that can be sensed, and not their apparent buzzings and bleeps [which are
simply the different ways that material entities exist].
But it is NOT so simple, as you say.
Jud: [earlier]
Of course the silly old buffer even lacked the nous to think that through
properly, to spot that Ein Kosmos ohne irgendwelche Gegenstände oder Wesen
[A cosmos without any objects or nature] would preclude the *entity* Dasein
too.
Rene:
well old bugger, he thought of that too. Dasein is, though, not merely an
entity.
Look at the word, linguist: Da - SEIN. Sein (to be) is a verb, and denotes a
condition, an action/passion. Not a thing no, why are you refuting yourself?
Jud:
I have mentioned the word *Dasein* and its meaning more time on this list
during the years I've been on it that you have had hot dinners.
I know quite well what *Dasin* means
you can't even write it...well that's all right. Just let me assure you,
that you don't understand what it is that Heidegger means by Dasein.
But you're not the only one. Everybody thinks he does, but they always
leave themselves out. So, not only their understanding, but also they
themselves, are reduced to the absurd. It's dangerous stuff, Jud. But it is
good that babies are so well protected against it.
i'm going home now, must prepare my hot dinner. Everything that will be
involved in it, most certainly exists (in your sense), but i never ever could
relate to it (buying, carrying, eating the food for instance) if there was
not a permeable sphere, that makes contact possible. The question is for that
sphere. It is not dependent on my spoon, or my leg. Rather the other way around,
so it looks. But nothing is sure here. That's why going a way is necessary.
And we here try to go the philosopher's way.
greetings to your landmass,
rene
and if humanity and all other beings
where missing from Heidegger's Mark 1 ontology there would be no *being there*
of humanity either? You just don't concentrate like you used to do - old age
creeping up? ;-)
Jud [previously]
So even if *Being* by some mad metaphysical twist of reality WAS still
able to kick-around without being the *Being* of anything - it couldn't do
its
job of *uncovering* anything for (1) there would be nothing to be
*uncovered*
and (2) there would be nothing to *uncover* it to.
Rene:
Right. Watch it Jud, you're now talking like a Heideggerean. Thanks, I
cannot
achieve more
Jud:
I knew if I left off the *8th and 14th letter* word and utilise or mimicked
the language of Heidegger I'd have you tied up in knots.
I'm rather enjoying this existentialist ventriloquist act - soon the words
will be rolling off my tongue like any other Heidyite bullshitter - WHAT FUN!
I expect the usual burst of ad hom soon - but I have my pickel-stauber hat
on and I well entrenched in my scraped-out DA.
My anti-Heideggerian geiger-counter always detects the movement of slowly
turning cogs when my criticisms become impossible to fend off and explain. ;-)
Better get that Kant out Rene again and have another read? ;-)
Regards,
Groet from my ownmost, uttermost, Englishmost ownness of my darling little
Northern DA by the Irish sea.
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 ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---