Jud:
An interesting and very revealing response from Rene.
All the questions [with the exception of one] are dodged or evaded using
the usual ploys of [in Rene's case] good humoured ad hom
and diversionary tactics. Nothing new here you say? No attempt to address
the glaring contradictions in Heidegger's thinking which scream out to
be acknowledged of defended. Its of no real consequence regarding Ontology
Mark One - its dead and gone like its author anyway.
Non-water under a non-bridge.
Jud:
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?
Rene:
Your assumption is invalid. Why do you bring this totally irrelevant quote?
Jud:
What Heidegger said/believed was that *Being* means *object giveness,* [this
holds good for his later amended ontology too] the aspect under which the
entity is understood.
*It is the function of the form in the complex of meaning to give the object
its *Being.*
Why have Heidegger's words suddenly become invalid? Are you losing faith in
him already?
He is addressing what *Being* means here - have you drifted so far away from
him that you no longer agree with his
concept of the meaning of *Being?*
Jud:
(earlier]
ONTOLOGY (A) *Being* might well be WITHOUT entities. Now in this version,
*Being,* which he offers as being the *existence* of an entity/entities
no
Jud:
But this is what your mentor actually believed before he realised what an
ontological joke it was?
What are you saying *no* to exactly. Are you disputing that this was once
his position?
Are you saying *no* to his belief? Are you saying that he was wrong to posit
that *Being* might well be WITHOUT beings?
Jud [earlier} Continues concerning Heidegger's original believe that *Being*
can be without entities...
Rene:
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)
Jud:
Why would Heidegger wish to write riddles if he is a philosopher? Was he
modelling himself on Zeno? ;-)
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.
Jud:
In what way does the notion that *Being* (Beyng) that is, differ from the
metaphysical *Being* of beings?
If *Being* (Beyng) which *needs* beings to instantiate (understand it) is
said to be without beings - it is more of a metaphysical notion that the
metaphysical notion itself. C'mon - your Vlanderen thinking is losing its
sharpness of focus Rene? Too much Tulip Soup?Advokaat?
Rene:
Hey, from where comes this light suddenly?
Oh, it was me...
Jud:
You struck a match to illuminate the cave? An opening in clearing perhaps -
or maybe a smouldering straw clutched as the water of philosophical nemesis
rises?
Jud:
Please don't evade the question.
Rene:
WHAT????
Jud:
The Question as to how Heidegger could have been so silly to image that
*Being* could be without beings which instantiate it as *Being?*
Rene: Again.
WHAT???
Jud:
The Question as to how Heidegger could have been so silly to image that
*Being* could be without beings which instantiate it as *Being?*
And in the traditions of melodrama you should have place four exclamation
marks after 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?
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.
Jud:
Right. Shortly I will turn to concentrate on Heidegger's final solution to
the *question of *Being.*
We will forget the first attempt with the possibility of a beingless *Being*
and start to examine.
I will explain to you further down this page the secret of how Heidegger
appropriated Husserl's ontology, and pulled off his greatest trick of all
But first to put Ontology Mark One to bed forever...
Jud:
Here it is again...
Rene:
* But of course and lastly, as he corrected, there is never being without
beings..*
Jud:
My God! It completely transforms 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!
Rene:
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.
Jud:
Your comments regarding *babies* are noted for further use.
Jud:
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.
Rene:
He's the fox, you're the weasel. Forgotten again?
Jud:
Actually I was *catweasel - named after a type of ferret trained to bite the
testicle of lying or boring priests. ;-)
Rene:
What is it with you and 'brain'? Are you thinking with your brain? Really?
Jud:
Oh, another sign that you cannot defend your master is it? Lay it on thick
my friend many eyes are watching your performance.
Judgements are being made.
Jud:
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?
Rene:
Philosophy, is not about fig-trees.
Jud:
Heidegger used *leaves* eleven times in B&T - why are the trees banned?
What have you to say when beings are misunderstood and *Being* is rendered
as inauthentic?
Is the old man condemned to wander for ever believing that a plastic
Christmas tree is a fig tree - like Heidegger
was buried believing that *is* could be found hidden somewhere in a leaf?
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:
Exactly what has this got to do with the notion of a beingless *Being?*
Jud: [earlier]
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
Rene:
Arggg, there's the baby popping up! Why not a monkey? Babies and monkeys have
no business in philosophy. Is there a Piaget-list, a Lorenz-list?
Jud:
My reference is to the fact that babies are not thrown into the world with
the a priori knowledge that the world as a sphere.
I doubt if monkeys do either - why not look in the mirror and ask if you are
not sure? ;-)
Jud:
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*.
Rene:
This is just the refusal of any empathy, one cannot deal with it.
But we recognize it very well.
Jud:
It is not my job to feel sorry for Heidegger. That is your job, the job of
your fellow supports and Arendt's.
My deconstruction of his *settled* or final *Being needs being* pathological
stage, is coming soon - have patience.
But first [in this post] to tidy up the loose ends from Ontology Mark one,
and after that we can proceed.
Jud: [previously)
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.
Rene:
But you are a baby-philosopher! How embarrassing.
Jud:
You were a baby one yourself Rene - and you have fathered some. Did they
know the world was round when they were born?
Perhaps yours were thrown into the world as ready made Daseins? here in
Britain it doesn't work that that. We have to send them to school
show them educational globes and point out the curvature of the earth whilst
standing on the shore.
Jud [previously}
What nonsense is this? Philosophy for grown men or children's fairy stories?
Rene:
It's you who gotta choose, baby jud
Jud:
Sometimes I wish I was a baby again - and you my father Rene. :-)
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.
Rene:
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.
Jud:
No, I am a Celt - no English blood [or any other] at all - that is why I am
so warm, with
such a sunny, happy disposition. ;-) Some Germans [known as the English]
live here now.
The used our fair isle as an extra lebensraum long ago.
Rene:
What is it that makes you an Englishman? Just being there on that landmass?
Jud:
It says *British* on my passport - not *English.* ;-)
I don't *feel* English and never have done so.
Rene:
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.
Jud:
You don't believe the *objective island of Britain exists - try walking
back
home across the channel and see how far you get.
Rene:
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.
Jud:
If you are serious I will explain. It is a matter of colloquoulism.
When we Britis say *Jud is back home in England* or *Nunc is living in
America* we mean Jud is back home within the borders of England, or
Nunc is living within the territorial boudaries of USA.
We DO NOT say *Mount Everest is *in* the Asiastic landmass,* we say: *Mount
Everest is *on* the Asiastic landmass,* because it is physically and
topographically situated on top of the landmass of Asia. If a Dutch illegal
immigrant attempte to swim across the English channel to enjoy the economic benefits
of living in such a paradise, and arrived exausted an panting in the waves
that lash against the white chalk rocks of the White Cliffs of Dover, and a
helicopter lifted him out, he would be deposited *on* the safe soil of Olde
Engelunde.
I *get* the point you are trying to make BTW - just teasing...
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
Rene: 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.
Jud:
In all my life I have never seen either a thing that was *not the entity it
was,* or states and processes taht were not the states and processes
of that which was an entity. Perhaps you have. Tell me all about this
phenomenon you saw? Was it the soul of some blue-eyed ancient mariner's
albatross
perhaps, winging its lonely way around the smoking chimneys of
Pelikaanstraat, looking down at the black hombergs below and thinking it had gone off
course and arrived in a gesticulating Tel Aviv? ;-)
Jud:
for me *phenomena* are...
Rene:
For YOU, haha. We're talking of an-sich reality
Jud:
Yes, for ME Rene ... you see I don't go along which this universalisation of
human experience, in order to nullify indivdual understanding and unique
*Being* proliferation.
But shhhhh - I'm giving away Heidegger's best trick {Jud puts the
onto-rabbit back up his sleeve]
Jud [taking up the thread again...]
*Phenomena* are best left to those pimply-faced ones who loll about in
amusement arcades shooting pin-balls, 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, bumps and
bleeps [which are
simply the different ways that material entities exist].
Rene:
But it is NOT so simple, as you say.
Jud:
For Heideggerians nothing is simple [except Heideggerians] joke. :-)
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 *Dasein* means
Rene:
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.
Jud:
Oh, but YES I DO Rene - more than you can guess. I have finally sussed out
the
way the trick is carried out. Maybe its wrong to spoil the show - give away
the explanation of how the trick is done - spoil
the enjoyment for the kids? Shall I spill the beans and spoil the act so
the poor old conjurer can never find work again with discriminating audiences?
What do you say Rene old sausage? Trick or Treat?
Rene:
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.
Jud:
You speak of Heideggerian babies, and I cannot argue with that. Yes they
think they do,
and in so doing enjoy the Daseinic Disneyland, [like poor Michael on his
merry-go-round, sucking candy-floss and flaunting his Mickey Mouse socks, and
hoping it will never stop.
Such simple pleasures - for simple minds - and who am I to spoil such
childish fun? After all I have nine of my own, and hate to see their little faces
glum.
Rene:
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.
Jud:
Yes, off you go barmitzvah boy it won't hurt - and enjoy your meal
afterwards. And don't forget to stop as your wife instructed you, and pick up the
Kartoffle-Kloese in that little stores in Belgiëlei and Charlottelei, where the
assistants pin a gefiltre fish fin in your button-hole and gives you a kiss
for free.
The De-konstruction?
You'll have to wait a little longer to see how the trick's done - its on the
stocks [like a ship being made ready for launching.]
Greetings to your landmess, ;-)
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 ---