> Heidegger acknowledged along with Husserl that the *Being* of all beings
> [entities] lies in the sense we gain of them in our understanding.
> He shared also Husserl's transcendental subjectivism and modern
> anthropocentrism. Another way of understanding this is you take a peek at
> GA1 325. cf
> 215,266 - *Object-Givennesss* - 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.* Heidegger dismissed mirror theories of language and
> truth
> early on. The *all that is* [or my own:*that which exists*] becomes the
> categories of our understandong of *Being.*.
So, you found the reason why Being and Time failed, per Heidegger?
Congratulations!
Besides, let me make sense of the funny talk above: real existence means the
communional way of two beings (i.e., subject and object, but forget about
Descartes and Kant, for they did not get it) which establish a dialogue.
> (a) How can there be *Being* in a void deplete of entities, if the very
> being necessary for the instantiation of *Being* through the medium of
> understanding itself and/or understanding other beings, is in abstentia?
I understand that Being=the Whole, so, how could there be a Whole without
parts? Maybe It was not yet partitioned.
> (b) How can a void empty of beings include *Being,* if both the being
> which needs to understand a being, and the being which needs to be
> understood by that being in order to reveal/uncover *Being* are both
> not in being?
Being is Its own being. It fills even the inside of nothingness. Nothing is
a being, therefore it has being, therefore it includes as its substance the
Being.
According to Lucian Iordanescu, when we utter the word "nothing", we already
designated a being which exists in a certain place.
> (c) Put another way. In a system empty of beings, where beings are
> considered to be *unneccessary for *Being* to be present,* how can
> *Being* be *uncovered,* and how would a being looking in on system Mk1
> from the viewpoint of Mk 2 where beings are considered necessary for
> *Being* to be *uncovered* know this is the case or not the case?
Being uncovers Itself, when It whishes to. The audience may be Itself or
include unnecessary beings (no nasty subtext here).
> (d) In system MK 1 where beings are not considered necessary to *uncover*
> *Being* - who has *uncovered* it or understood or not understood it if
> the are no beings there in the first place to understand it or not to
> understand it - and how does Heidegger know this?
Heidegger was not a necessary being. He just popped into the world with all
the other beings, which were also not necessary, yet they got thrown
therein.
> (e) If *Being* WAS present in a non-being system who can vouchsafe the
> fact if there are no beings around either to instantiate it through an
> understanding of it or to testify as to it being unnecessary to
> understand it in order to instantiate [uncover] it?
What do you mean Being present in a non-being system? Non-being means the
nothing. Since the nothing is a being, I don't see how it could be the base
of a non-being system. At most, it could be the base of a non-existence
system. Being means to be, i.e. as a potential entity, and to exist means to
be in dynamics, i.e. to have communional relations with objects.
> (f) Same thing - different terminology. How can there be *existence* if
> there is nothing to be the existence of?
Well, it could be the existence of the nothing, provided dynamics would be
emptied of all beings (and objects).
> (g) How can *Being* exert *an act if will, * if *Being* is itself the
> result of an *the act of will* on the part of a being to understand
> itself or some other object?
Here lies the rub I noticed above. Beginning from anthropomorphic premises,
Being and Time was doomed to fail. However it is a brilliant failure, one
which may open the understanding of what Being is (Being as Being), be it
even in the way of an asymptotical approximation of a concept which was not
spelled out explicitly therein.
> This kiddy-philosophy is great fun - it's as easy as shooting sitting
> ducks who are floating on still water with their wings strapped to their
> sides. Why did I bother arsing around with numbers *8 and 14* when the
> putative ontological *noughts and crosses* bit [the so-called
> *Heideggerian philosophy,* is no more complicated than playing real
> *noughts and crosses* with 6-year olds? I can see now that the secret
> of unravelling this crap is to adopt Heidegger's own baby-language and
> simply use it to expose his stupidity. ;-) If Heidegger talked
> philosophical baby-talk, the only way to comment upon him, and be
> understood, is to don the same style diapers as him, kneel beside
> him, give him a rattle and speak baby-talk.
Expressed in plain German it is, absolutely speaking, a failure, for the
German is still the language of Kant and Hegel, and Heidegger was kind of an
unwelcome guest in that language.
But, forget about its failure on absolute standards. On relative standards I
say it makes a difference, and I say, for the better.
> Ah well! Tudor
> Back to the *worlding of the world*
>
> BTW you site is quite looking good - I visit occasionally.
Well, thank you. Your messages, though mean, are often quite inspiring. Keep
up the good work.
Tudor Georgescu
http://intellect-club.nl.eu.org
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> [entities] lies in the sense we gain of them in our understanding.
> He shared also Husserl's transcendental subjectivism and modern
> anthropocentrism. Another way of understanding this is you take a peek at
> GA1 325. cf
> 215,266 - *Object-Givennesss* - 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.* Heidegger dismissed mirror theories of language and
> truth
> early on. The *all that is* [or my own:*that which exists*] becomes the
> categories of our understandong of *Being.*.
So, you found the reason why Being and Time failed, per Heidegger?
Congratulations!
Besides, let me make sense of the funny talk above: real existence means the
communional way of two beings (i.e., subject and object, but forget about
Descartes and Kant, for they did not get it) which establish a dialogue.
> (a) How can there be *Being* in a void deplete of entities, if the very
> being necessary for the instantiation of *Being* through the medium of
> understanding itself and/or understanding other beings, is in abstentia?
I understand that Being=the Whole, so, how could there be a Whole without
parts? Maybe It was not yet partitioned.
> (b) How can a void empty of beings include *Being,* if both the being
> which needs to understand a being, and the being which needs to be
> understood by that being in order to reveal/uncover *Being* are both
> not in being?
Being is Its own being. It fills even the inside of nothingness. Nothing is
a being, therefore it has being, therefore it includes as its substance the
Being.
According to Lucian Iordanescu, when we utter the word "nothing", we already
designated a being which exists in a certain place.
> (c) Put another way. In a system empty of beings, where beings are
> considered to be *unneccessary for *Being* to be present,* how can
> *Being* be *uncovered,* and how would a being looking in on system Mk1
> from the viewpoint of Mk 2 where beings are considered necessary for
> *Being* to be *uncovered* know this is the case or not the case?
Being uncovers Itself, when It whishes to. The audience may be Itself or
include unnecessary beings (no nasty subtext here).
> (d) In system MK 1 where beings are not considered necessary to *uncover*
> *Being* - who has *uncovered* it or understood or not understood it if
> the are no beings there in the first place to understand it or not to
> understand it - and how does Heidegger know this?
Heidegger was not a necessary being. He just popped into the world with all
the other beings, which were also not necessary, yet they got thrown
therein.
> (e) If *Being* WAS present in a non-being system who can vouchsafe the
> fact if there are no beings around either to instantiate it through an
> understanding of it or to testify as to it being unnecessary to
> understand it in order to instantiate [uncover] it?
What do you mean Being present in a non-being system? Non-being means the
nothing. Since the nothing is a being, I don't see how it could be the base
of a non-being system. At most, it could be the base of a non-existence
system. Being means to be, i.e. as a potential entity, and to exist means to
be in dynamics, i.e. to have communional relations with objects.
> (f) Same thing - different terminology. How can there be *existence* if
> there is nothing to be the existence of?
Well, it could be the existence of the nothing, provided dynamics would be
emptied of all beings (and objects).
> (g) How can *Being* exert *an act if will, * if *Being* is itself the
> result of an *the act of will* on the part of a being to understand
> itself or some other object?
Here lies the rub I noticed above. Beginning from anthropomorphic premises,
Being and Time was doomed to fail. However it is a brilliant failure, one
which may open the understanding of what Being is (Being as Being), be it
even in the way of an asymptotical approximation of a concept which was not
spelled out explicitly therein.
> This kiddy-philosophy is great fun - it's as easy as shooting sitting
> ducks who are floating on still water with their wings strapped to their
> sides. Why did I bother arsing around with numbers *8 and 14* when the
> putative ontological *noughts and crosses* bit [the so-called
> *Heideggerian philosophy,* is no more complicated than playing real
> *noughts and crosses* with 6-year olds? I can see now that the secret
> of unravelling this crap is to adopt Heidegger's own baby-language and
> simply use it to expose his stupidity. ;-) If Heidegger talked
> philosophical baby-talk, the only way to comment upon him, and be
> understood, is to don the same style diapers as him, kneel beside
> him, give him a rattle and speak baby-talk.
Expressed in plain German it is, absolutely speaking, a failure, for the
German is still the language of Kant and Hegel, and Heidegger was kind of an
unwelcome guest in that language.
But, forget about its failure on absolute standards. On relative standards I
say it makes a difference, and I say, for the better.
> Ah well! Tudor
> Back to the *worlding of the world*
>
> BTW you site is quite looking good - I visit occasionally.
Well, thank you. Your messages, though mean, are often quite inspiring. Keep
up the good work.
Tudor Georgescu
http://intellect-club.nl.eu.org
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---