In a message dated 25/10/2004 14:23:19 GMT Standard Time, tgeorgescu@xxxxxxx
writes:
> 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.*.
Tudor:
So, you found the reason why Being and Time failed, per Heidegger?
Congratulations!
Jud:
Thanks. It was obvious from the first few paragraphs of B and T that it
isn't a questioning of *Being,* but a questioning of the questioning of *Being.*
In other words it is not the actuality of *Being* which is being questioned.
This is a theological approach, like a new Christian cult doesn't question
the notion that *God* exists and needs to be worshipped, but questions the way
that other Christian cults question the way that *God* exists and needs to
be worshipped. In that sense Heideggerianism is totally worthless as a
would-be replacement cult.
Tudor:
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.
Jud: (Having temporally disconnected the wire to the Heideggerian implant)
*Existence* and *Being* are no more than tricks which the brain plays upon
us in relation to something which is present as opposed to something which is
absent. Because all other gerunds [Tudor's danc-ing, Jud's swim-ming, etc.]
we employ are believed to be *properties* the entities Tudor and Jud who carry
out these activities, the brain confusedly thinks that *Be-ing* [or
*existence*] must also be a *property* of any entity which exists.
Jud: [previously]
> (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?
Tudor:
I understand that Being=the Whole, so, how could there be a Whole without
parts? Maybe It was not yet partitioned.
Jud:
A good point which Heidegger also missed out on.
*Partition requires a partitioner.… You know - the way Jehovah partitioned
the Red Sea so the
Israelites could make good their escape? ;-)
Jud: [previously]
> (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?
Tudor:
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.
Jud:
Then Lucian is very, very wrong. According to Heidegger's mantra anyway.
Being* is the *Being* of a being or beings which are instantiated by being
understood by human beings.
YES I KNOW it sounds crazy, and it IS CRAZY - but this is what this lot
actually believe!
So according to the Freiburg crazy-man 8Being* can't be its own *Being* cos'
its already the Being* of some other being.
If you go down the path of believing the *Being* also has a *Being* then it
follows that the *Being of *Being* must also have a *Being* and the *Being*
of the *Being* of *Being* must have a *Being* and so on for ever and ever
until Heidegger *fundamental ontology* disappears up his own fundament.
Jud: [previously]
> (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?
Tudor:
Being uncovers Itself, when It wishes to. The audience may be Itself or
include unnecessary beings (no nasty subtext here).
Jud:
*Being* cannot *uncover itself* because it can only be *uncovered* by the
uncovering process
initiated during the process of the human perception, understanding and
instantiation of a being process,
which results in the *uncovering of *Being.*
*Being* however cannot be instantiated or uncovered by the Heideggerian
process of *object givenness because:
(a) It is not an object.
(b) It has ALREADY been instantiated by the
*givenness* process of the object involved in its instantiation.
(c) *Being* cannot *wish* anything at all because as the list-guru says — it
is just a metaphors, and as far as I know, metaphors cannot *wish*, because
a metaphor is a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to
something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity
Jud:(earlier)
> (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?
Tudor:
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.
Jud:
According to Heidegger's Ontology Mark 1 - surely the weirdest *ontology*
ever posited,
*Being* doesn't need beings to be. As Heidegger was thrown into the world
before he came up with this stupid beingless
cosmos complete with *Being,* how did he KNOW that this was the state of the
cosmos, and how [after he changed his mind] did he know that it was no
longer the case or NEVER HAD BEEN SO?
Jud: [earlier]
> (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?
Tudor:
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.
Jud:
I am referring to Heidegger's crazy Mark 1 Ontology - in which *Being* is -
without [unaccompanied by] beings.
Putting the definite article *the* or the negative *non* in front of the
word *nothing* *existence* or *Being* does not wave a magic wand over it and
make *existence* or *Being* or *nothing* actually real.
Jud: [previously]
> (f) Same thing - different terminology. How can there be *existence* if
> there is nothing to be the existence of?
Tudor:
Well, it could be the existence of the nothing, provided dynamics would be
emptied of all beings (and objects).
Jud:
Hahahah! [No other response possible] Does the non-existence of the nothing
exist too?
And the non-existence of the non-existence of the nothing, and the
non-existence of the
of the non-existence of the non-existence of the non-existence of the
nothing?
Watch out! Heidegger's fundament is looming closer and closer?
Can't you smell the whiff of lederhosen, lavender furniture polish and
stale saurkraut?
Jud: [earlier]
> (g) How can *Being* exert *an act of 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?
Tudor:
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.
Jud:
A brilliant failure is not how the Heidegger groupies describe it - for them
it is Holy Scripture.
One Heideggerian attempted to introduce the book into a courtroom in order
to swear upon it [rather than the Bible]
The judge threw the book out of the courtroom window and gave the man
another 3-months on top of his sentence for contempt of court. ;-)
OR am I confusing it with Alice in Wonderland? The two books are so much
alike on the level of fantasy?
Jud[earlier]
> 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.
Tudor:
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.
Jud:
Perhaps he was an alien - abandoned on the island earth like some
metaphysical Robinson Crusoe?
Tudor:
But, forget about its failure on absolute standards. On relative standards I
say it makes a difference, and I say, for the better.
Jud:
On the basis of the belly laughs it gives me - I wouldn't be without it - it
knocks shit out of my Rupert Books collection. ;-)
> Ah well! Tudor
> Back to the *worlding of the world*
>
> BTW you site is quite looking good - I visit occasionally.
Tudor:Well, thank you. Your messages, though mean, are often quite
inspiring. Keep
up the good work.
Jud:
For me the *good work* is doing my small bit to deconstruct the damaging
bourgeois fantasy which is Heideggerianism
and to resist the zombification of philosophy. The dead body of
scholasticism and other primitivisms, which has been disinterred, received an electric
prod up its ass and has been brought back to life by Heidegger to resume its
stage-role in the *Narroway Production* of: *The Supernatural Farce.* [might
make a good opera?]
The EE website has shot up to 2000 to 2500 visitors per DAY now - so my
*Philosophical Good Samaritan* work is getting a good airing.
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 ---