Onderwerp: Re: Eisegesis or Anagoges of Truth
In a message dated 25/10/2004 23:50:36 GMT Standard Time,
phil@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
writes:
In article <1dd.2eff4e7d.2eae36e7@xxxxxxx>, GEVANS613@xxxxxxx writes
>An object exists in the way that it exists, all descriptions of the way
it
>exists which
>differ from the way it exists are untruthful. Descriptions of entities
>cannot be MORE truthful or LESS truthful than the description
>which truthfully describes the way an entity exists. Descriptions of
>entities which correctly or incorrectly describe some features
>of the way an entity exists, but not others, are NOT truthful in relation
to
>the way that the entity exists.
Philip Baker writes:
Do you really believe that we can make assertions that are complete and
totally accurate descriptions of objects? If a description falls short
of this ideal (how do we know it does?) do we then take it as useless
and consign it to the rubbish bin of falsehood?
Jud:
Either you missed the previous [*Dasein* and the Gerundialisation of
Philosophy Part 4 of] or you
read it un-hermeneutically and/or forgot what you had read.
Nowhere in the 4 articles have I ever said that:
*We can make assertions that are complete and totally accurate descriptions
of objects.*
Rene writes:
Jud,
I think that Philip reads you better than you yourself.
But - and this reminds a bit too clearly of
Anthony-where-did-I-ever-say-that?
- you even would deny, if you would have used exactly the same words:
*We can make assertions that are complete and totally accurate descriptions
of objects.
Cos, as a rigid nominalist, you must say: this linguistic sequence here,
although identical to the previous one, does not contain the EXACT identical
physical signs that i see 10 lines up.
Meanwhile, we all see the cheating. You said:
"...the description which truthfully describes the way an entity exists...",
which Philip translated salva veritate by "
Jud:
Rene old Boy,
Have you been at the tulip wine this morning? A bit early isn't it?
You criticise Anthony but embrace his well known tactics of :
(1) Create quotation marks "
(2) Add three dots: "...
(2) Insert out-of-context text: "...the description which truthfully
describes the way an entity exists
(4) Add another three dots:"...the description which truthfully describes
the way an entity exists...
(5) Create enclosing quotation marks.:"...the description which truthfully
describes the way an entity exists..."
(6) BINGO! Wrong impression sucessful!
This sort of trickery is beneath you Rene and is a thinly disguised ploy to
avoid you having to address the real criticism
in my piece, which is the impossibility of instantiating a true
representation of *Being* via the Husserlian/Heideggerian
process of *object givenness.* There is NOTHING in your mail which addresses
the actual criticism - just a mixture of chicanery, low-level [but amusing]
ad hom [the Platonist jibe] and obscurantist blather. I am convinced that you
are well and truly out of you depth, and the list-emperor has at last been
*uncovered as being nothing more that an au naturel, insecure Dutchman, his
modesty shyly concealed by a copy of :*The Gay Science,* clinging to the
library radiators for want of warmth. ;-)
First I set out my table as to the idealistic view THEORETICAL view of h
uman sensorial perception,
positing the result of IF IT WERE POSSIBLE to produce an accurate
perception, understanding and description of a being [entity],
and then I provide the actual facts of the matter, which is that any human
assessment of the way an object [being] exists is restricted
as being *FOR THE OBSERVER.* I mentioned *FOR THE OBSERVER* TWICE [read
the text again] in the appropriate paragraph because I aware of the lack of
hermenuetical professionalism and concentration shown on these lists.
Rene:
which just tells about the deep Platonism of all nominalists.
Jud:
Do you realise how silly you are making yourself look Rene.
To accuse a nominalist of Platonism requires FACTS and INSTANCES - let us
have them
don't keep them to yourself. *WHICH* is it precisely that *TELLS* *about
the deep Platonism of all nominalists.*
Rene:
Basically, you have not followed Nietzsche's critics of ANY conception
that (still) believes in reality an sich.
Jud:
I couldn't give a monkey's f--- WHAT old syphilis-brain said or thought.
What kind of an authority is HE anyway?
If you insist on being dependent on the thinking of others rather than using
your own wits,
I advise you to seek out better *authorities* who command some respect,
rather than deranged idiots with serious personal problems like Nietzsche.
I have told you before - *appeals to authority go right over my head.*
I think for myself.
Rene:
All correspondence, incl. all science,
according to Nietzsche, is nothing in itself, nothing 'ideal', but is always
already relative to a lifeform, that as hard, or even harder, needs art and
illusion. For instance: if man could not feel the quality warmth/cold, he
would
never get the idea of measuring the temperature (a fortiori lord Kelvin).
Jud:
Utter bollocks! Even if man was bereft of sensors to register heat or cold
he would still want to find the reason why the lakes froze over in winter
and he could walk from one side to the other.
He would still want to know why the water started bubbling in his cooking
pot and the meat went soft, and why if you got a burning stake shoved in your
eye you went blind. What is this *philosophy* or physics for the under 10-year
old trannies?
Rene:
But what is worse: the problems caused by the failure to meet Nietzsche's
problem,
you give them immediately to Heidegger. But Heidegger has an answer: truth as
openness.
Jud:
More rubbish. Truth is the actuality of objects in the de facto way in which
they exist.
*Openness* is the result of a mediated, imagined, [through-a-glass-darkly
version] an approximation transacted as of an interpretation of
the sensorial experience in which the door of human understanding is merely
ajar - not fully open - a position it can never attain.
Thus the Heideggerian dream of *Being* can never be realised for it is based
upon a bastard version human interpretation.
Rene:
THIS truth, though, cannot itself be expressed in terms of correspondence,
but precedes it, also when not seen.
Jud:
You need to reread your Heidegger Bible instead of confining yourself and
relying on the information on the flyleaves of incoming new library books
Rene. The truth of *Being* according to Heidegger is revealed in our
perception of beings and our instantiation of our understanding of them into the
*Being of beings.* The *precedence* of which you speak refers to Heidegger's
difference with Husserl, in that he plays down the intuitive bit, and places us
firmly within an understanding of ourselves and our place in the world
determined by the past we have experienced.
Hahahah! And HOW ELSE have we derived these past understandings of our
world? By THE SAME *object givenness* procedures that we experience in our
present-time instantiations of *Being,* in the same way as you look upon this
screen and instantiate its *Being.* at this very moment. Later your viewing of the
screen will merge into your past *Being in the world* but the information
you have derived and your kicking of your debased version of your experience
*upstairs* into the realm of *Being* will be no difference methodologically to
your experience if you glance down at the hair on the back of your
hand...Wait for it!...Wait for it! - OK...NOW!
So Heidegger's *Being in the world* Daseinic bolt-on achieves nothing, other
than the fact that it admits past experiences of *object givenness*
and refers to this experietial memorialisation together with *present
experience* - as *Being in the World.*
Rene:
That is: as long as correspondence is all one can think of re truth - and
already the whole of metaphysics did not look beyond - ,
Jud:
This was Husserl's method and the one which influenced Heidegger - it is NOT
my method - for I do not recognise human opinions of entitic reality AS
TRUTH, but only as BEST FIT approximations of the final and only example of all
truth - which is the actual way in which an object exists.
Rene:
one has forgotten that things already appear within a light, that is
irreducible and
geschichtlich, bound to a time and a place, like in our time correspondence
or coherence,
that are however almost completely pragmatically devalued.
Jud:
What is there is truthful about things geschichtlich - some of the greatest
lies of history [Platonism, religion, Communism, Fascism, Mercantilism,
Capitalism, etc., contain more lies that a double-decker bus full of Tom Peppers.
What *lights* are you referring to? The Star of Bethlehem? Haley's Comet?
The explosion of the USS Maine in Havana Bay?
Rene:
I heard that also the latest developments in string theory are forced to
accept a last
anthropic ground for the properties of particles, admitting still to Kant
that we have
only knowledge of phenomena, never of noumena.
Jud:
There is no such thing exists as *noumena.* What exists are entities which
exist as they exist as *things in themselves* [they CERTAINLY don't exist as
things in OTHER things selves]. We can NEVER truly perceive them and
understand them, nor can we describe them as they actually exist. To rename
unknowable objects *noumena* is a silliness whose only redeeming factor is that it
highlights and emphasises the impossibility of the transcendental process of
*Object Givenness*, for an object that cannot be perceived, understood and
described in the sense of Kant's *noumena* and can only be known through a
distorted human perception also cannot be instantiated as the TRUE *Being* of a
being IN THE WAY THAT HUSSERL AND HEIDEGGER CLAIM. The Kantian notion of
noumena is his intellectual conception of a thing as it is in itself, not as it is
known through perception - and it is this INVALID perceived version of a
being that is used in the process of *object givenness.*
The Kantian notion of *noumena* is the opposite side of the same coin as
that which is perceived and instantiated by the Husserlian - *Object Givenness.*
All that these transcendentalist coves do is to rejig and rename the
ontological models of past trannies and call them their own. They are/were
PLAGIARISTS the lot of them - to the last man.
Rene:
Heidegger, though, already in the time of BT, was informed as to the
Grundlagen crisis
of the sciences (formalism vs intuitionism in mathematics; in later years he
discussed
physics with von Weizsaecker and Heisenberg.
Jud:
Mathematics is a pretence [metaphysics] that works - in that way it takes
its place with *time* as a necessary abstraction.
Rene:
Science just follows the nihilistic process of metaphysics, has received its
idea of
reality, as it is taken away from it.
Jud:
There is much in science which is metaphysical. Pretence is not just the
reserve of Heideggerians and other sundry trannies.
The difference is that mathematical pretence works, and Heideggerian
pretense does not.
Rene:
I'm afraid your idea of reality and truth are themselves innocent dreams,
merely using
historical notions, that are no longer believed in, except maybe in that
fairy-landmass,
where there seems to be a serious crisis in all of its fundaments.
Jud:
The biggest *fundaments* in Britain right now are Blair and the other
ass-holes who give him support.
I have no believe in reality - only what is real. My belief in *truth*
equates with *that which is true,* which equates with *that which exists as it
exists.*
To describe an object as *that which exists in the way it exists* is to
neutralise the noumenal notion, for whilst recognising the validity of such a
statement, it absolves the observer from any ontological responsibility to make
false truth-claims concerning it as a perceived object, which is EXACTLY what
Heidegger and Husserl did in their Laurel and Hardy fantasy of *object
givenness,*
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 ---