In a message dated 22/10/2004 23:00:00 GMT Standard Time,
FREDWELFARE@xxxxxxx writes:
In a message dated 10/22/2004 5:38:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gevans613@xxxxxxx writes:
if Heidegger admits that his internal perceptionist Mark 2 - *ME*
doesn't comprehend perceptionist Mark 1 - *I,* and perceptionist Mark
1 - *I* doesn't comprehend perceptionist Mark 2 - *ME,* how can
either of them be expected to uncover the *Being* of another being,
if they cannot even understand their own *Being?*
Why did you capitalize being if Heidegger does not? Is this a Meadian
digression?
Is the objectified 'me' ever really considered as real? Why si the plural
pronoun always forgotten in this kinds of criticism, what about 'we?'
Fred
Jud:
A good point Fred and one that I have already written about - or should I
say I have already started to write about. As soon as I've finished exploring
the question of *Ontology Mark One,* {that of the beingless *Being* and why
it was a stupid mess,] I am working on a more extensive analytical attack
[using his own Heideggerian baby-speak] on the philosophical heist that comprises
the fundamental ontology itself. I hope to explain exactly how and why he
ripped of the basic ideas of Duns Scotus, and later Husserl, and how by a
clever conjuration concerning pluralism [which of course brings in the *us* and
*we,* and allows him to practically dispense altogether with the *I* and *me
of the singleton *ego*]
More importantly I will explore the reason that he was forced to do it, and
the importance of *Dasein* as a gerundial tool.
So we will look at the reason for the introduction of the plagiarised
*Dasein.* which he spliced together with Scotian notions of *object givenness* and
Husserlian phenomenology in order to neutralise the individual understanding
of beings which instantiates our very own versions of *Being.* - the
*Being* of the REAL world, not the Daseinic fantasy world , which he used as a
replacement and as a false universal ontological inoculum to exclude
singledom, by replacing it with an ontological ecumenicalism of *the everyday* or a
generalised mass *being-there* of humanity.
It is the British convention to capitalise Being in order to clearly
distinguish it from the continuous form of *be.* I also place *scare quotes* around
it too - thus: *Being* [using asterisks for greater clarity] in order to
signal that I personally do not approve of the word or its intension. You ask:
*Is *me* ever really considered as real? Yes, I am sure it is Fred. If I held a
gun to your temple and said: *Give me your watch NOW"*
I am sure you would have no difficulty is comprehending who was meant by
*me,* and deciding that the nominatum with the gun was indicated by the word.
Regards.
BTW.
I have decided to curtail my usual anti-Nazi attacks for a while, and not
even bother identifying elements of his politics in his philosophy, and just
concentrate on his *philosophy* itself in more detail. This means adopting
most of his stupid terminology, but that's fine with me, for I believe I can
damn him with his own words together with the creaking contradictions that
infest his works.
Jud
Personal Website:
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
E-mail Discussion List:
nominalism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 ---