Dasein and the Gerundalisation of Philosophy 05
Auntie Heidegger’s Ontological Aunt Sallys.
Heidegger’s criticism of the scientific way of percieving beings emploting a
*disassociative perspective* or *theoretical view in their treatment of
*merely occurring things* by the process of *occurrence alongside* as a
operation of object perception, is described by him as a: “Splitting asunder of the
phenomena” and as we all know, a phenomenon is “any state or process known
through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning.”
Heidegger belabours this *occurrence alongside* method of perceptive
procedure as being an inferior derived posture in which its exponents are relegated
to “worldless subjects” who have managed to establish contact with various
separate objects.
On the other hand, Heidegger’s “superior” way of perceiving and
understanding beings is defined by him as “being among” in the world of the “ready to
hand.”
He fails to point out of course that for an observer, whether a scientific
one or not, to not be alongside an object, and to not be involved in a
juxapositional sensorial assessment of an object without being by it or alongside
it or observationally near to it, whether with or without the assistance of
scientific instruments, is an impossible task.
What then is the difference in the way that a Heideggerian perceives, and
observes an object, as compared to the way a non-Heideggerian perceives and
understands an object? The answer is “differently.” Furthermore an object is
perceived and understood differently by one Heideggerian from the way it is
perceived and understood by every other Heideggerian. In addition, an object
is perceived and understood differently by one non-Heideggerian from the way
it is perceived and understood by every other non-Heideggerian. In short
EVERYBODY in the world perceives and understands objects differently.
Heidegger failed completely in his attempt to complete [or even attempt to
start to complete] his putative project of:
“The laying bare of the horizon for an interpretation of *Being* as such”
Yes, he always wrote as if he had spewed a mouthful of half-chewed
sauerkraut onto his Blickensderfer, which had insinuated its masticated fibres into
the mechanism,]
Indeed I refer to the unpublished section of *Being and Time,* which,
amongst other things held the promise that it may have explicated the difference
between the perception and understanding of objects as bungled by ordinary
mortals. It may even have thrown light upon the superior way of performing it
in accordance with those transcendental Argonauts of the *being-among?*. We
have to presume that Heidegger’s golden caprice-seekers would enter the
world of the “being among” and after abandoning the troglodytes of the “
occurrence alongside,” to blunder around vainly attempting to perceive the objects
of their interest in total ontological darkness - would ignite the Olympian
torch of knowing at last, and beings would be illuminated in the blinding
light of Heideggerian perception.
Of course, as we all know – it never happened.
Another example of one of Heidegger’s half-cocked notions which he never got
around to cocking-up completely.
Indeed, the omitted section or division of *Being and Time* which was
supposed by him to have contained this “world shattering revelation” - the “news”
that that one must be present with an object in order to perceive it, was
never visited upon an information-hungry public who were milling around in
confusion awaiting theblessed instructions to arrive from Nazi Germany
regarding the correct way to view and understand objects when viewing them. One
had to wait patiently until the end of hostilities in order to access
*Heideggers Anweisungen auf, wie Sachen anzuschauen sind,* and to learn how to see
objects in the correct light.
Those among us who are not delirious are entitled to ask: “Who has ever
suggested that any human being is worldless or unconstituted by the world?
Heidegger has the typically peasant trait of putting up some stupid Aunt Sally
with the implication that they were created or suggested by somebody else
rather than he, and then triumphantly disposing of them as if he has cleverly
seen through them and performed some great transcendental favour. The
technique is surprisingly similar to the strategies carried out by a certain
diminutive but high ranking member of the political party which he supported, who
made a career of dreaming up some lie, then demolishing it in such a way that
those accused of perpetrating the lie are made out to be the liars, and he who
lied about the lie emerges as a paragon of verity.
The called it propaganda though – not philosophy.
Heidegger’s choreographing of various modalities of *Being* – the
occurrent, the being-there, the being-with and the ready-to-hand etc., lacked the
cognitive homogeny of a constitutive whole. For Heidegger all these kinds of “
sights” facilitated antithetical kinds of enlightenment of the world. Of course
these fatuous coinages were mere commonalties tricked out in his peculiar
form of Black Forrest baby-speak - probably the cattle-drovers and
shit-shovellers of his youth spoke that way? *Ready to hand,* simply means readily
available, *being-with* means together with, *the occurrent* means: an event or a
happening - anything that happens; an occurrence. Now I ask you - why on
earth did he talk like a peasant child?
Heidegger took another step towards ridicule which comes with a pompous
restatement of the obvious, with his introduction of the word *care* which was
merely a replacement term for *worldly involvement* as if the fact that most
people other than the comatose, the permantly drunk and the chronically
depressed, and those people who were asleep were NOT involved in and concerned
about themselves and their place in the world that they experienced, and that
even though we view ourselves as the centre of our world, we generally treat
the world as part of our project and our involvement in it.
There is nothing in this regurgitation of the axiomatic that is either new
or revelatory – it is something that any stranger on a train or
platform-sweeper could tell you – for this is general knowledge dressed up as philosophical
profundity.
For Heidegger everything within this enterprise of human engagement and
involvement with our world and everything that is in it, everything present
finds it meaning within this projection only insofar as they form part of it –
everything has its meaning and therefore its *Being*.
This is simply another version of “object givenness,” but this is object
givenness on a massive and global scale, for now all entities and beings in the
world are converted to Beinghood - THOUGH THAT IS PATENTLY AN IMPOSSIBLE
HUMAN TASK, for it is physically impossible even with a the world population
of 6 billion [2000] people to either position themselves *occurrently
alongside,* or *be amongst* the uncountable beings of the world - entities which
are to found in proliferation in the the world, or in the depths of the seas,
and upon the summits of the mountains, so the crazed Heideggerian idea that
*The Whole of Being* is instantiated by the process of *object givenness*
with the obligatory *human instantiator* in attendance isn’t worth the paper
that it is written upon.
Bottom line? No human - no meaning - no *Whole of Being.*
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 ---
Auntie Heidegger’s Ontological Aunt Sallys.
Heidegger’s criticism of the scientific way of percieving beings emploting a
*disassociative perspective* or *theoretical view in their treatment of
*merely occurring things* by the process of *occurrence alongside* as a
operation of object perception, is described by him as a: “Splitting asunder of the
phenomena” and as we all know, a phenomenon is “any state or process known
through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning.”
Heidegger belabours this *occurrence alongside* method of perceptive
procedure as being an inferior derived posture in which its exponents are relegated
to “worldless subjects” who have managed to establish contact with various
separate objects.
On the other hand, Heidegger’s “superior” way of perceiving and
understanding beings is defined by him as “being among” in the world of the “ready to
hand.”
He fails to point out of course that for an observer, whether a scientific
one or not, to not be alongside an object, and to not be involved in a
juxapositional sensorial assessment of an object without being by it or alongside
it or observationally near to it, whether with or without the assistance of
scientific instruments, is an impossible task.
What then is the difference in the way that a Heideggerian perceives, and
observes an object, as compared to the way a non-Heideggerian perceives and
understands an object? The answer is “differently.” Furthermore an object is
perceived and understood differently by one Heideggerian from the way it is
perceived and understood by every other Heideggerian. In addition, an object
is perceived and understood differently by one non-Heideggerian from the way
it is perceived and understood by every other non-Heideggerian. In short
EVERYBODY in the world perceives and understands objects differently.
Heidegger failed completely in his attempt to complete [or even attempt to
start to complete] his putative project of:
“The laying bare of the horizon for an interpretation of *Being* as such”
Yes, he always wrote as if he had spewed a mouthful of half-chewed
sauerkraut onto his Blickensderfer, which had insinuated its masticated fibres into
the mechanism,]
Indeed I refer to the unpublished section of *Being and Time,* which,
amongst other things held the promise that it may have explicated the difference
between the perception and understanding of objects as bungled by ordinary
mortals. It may even have thrown light upon the superior way of performing it
in accordance with those transcendental Argonauts of the *being-among?*. We
have to presume that Heidegger’s golden caprice-seekers would enter the
world of the “being among” and after abandoning the troglodytes of the “
occurrence alongside,” to blunder around vainly attempting to perceive the objects
of their interest in total ontological darkness - would ignite the Olympian
torch of knowing at last, and beings would be illuminated in the blinding
light of Heideggerian perception.
Of course, as we all know – it never happened.
Another example of one of Heidegger’s half-cocked notions which he never got
around to cocking-up completely.
Indeed, the omitted section or division of *Being and Time* which was
supposed by him to have contained this “world shattering revelation” - the “news”
that that one must be present with an object in order to perceive it, was
never visited upon an information-hungry public who were milling around in
confusion awaiting theblessed instructions to arrive from Nazi Germany
regarding the correct way to view and understand objects when viewing them. One
had to wait patiently until the end of hostilities in order to access
*Heideggers Anweisungen auf, wie Sachen anzuschauen sind,* and to learn how to see
objects in the correct light.
Those among us who are not delirious are entitled to ask: “Who has ever
suggested that any human being is worldless or unconstituted by the world?
Heidegger has the typically peasant trait of putting up some stupid Aunt Sally
with the implication that they were created or suggested by somebody else
rather than he, and then triumphantly disposing of them as if he has cleverly
seen through them and performed some great transcendental favour. The
technique is surprisingly similar to the strategies carried out by a certain
diminutive but high ranking member of the political party which he supported, who
made a career of dreaming up some lie, then demolishing it in such a way that
those accused of perpetrating the lie are made out to be the liars, and he who
lied about the lie emerges as a paragon of verity.
The called it propaganda though – not philosophy.
Heidegger’s choreographing of various modalities of *Being* – the
occurrent, the being-there, the being-with and the ready-to-hand etc., lacked the
cognitive homogeny of a constitutive whole. For Heidegger all these kinds of “
sights” facilitated antithetical kinds of enlightenment of the world. Of course
these fatuous coinages were mere commonalties tricked out in his peculiar
form of Black Forrest baby-speak - probably the cattle-drovers and
shit-shovellers of his youth spoke that way? *Ready to hand,* simply means readily
available, *being-with* means together with, *the occurrent* means: an event or a
happening - anything that happens; an occurrence. Now I ask you - why on
earth did he talk like a peasant child?
Heidegger took another step towards ridicule which comes with a pompous
restatement of the obvious, with his introduction of the word *care* which was
merely a replacement term for *worldly involvement* as if the fact that most
people other than the comatose, the permantly drunk and the chronically
depressed, and those people who were asleep were NOT involved in and concerned
about themselves and their place in the world that they experienced, and that
even though we view ourselves as the centre of our world, we generally treat
the world as part of our project and our involvement in it.
There is nothing in this regurgitation of the axiomatic that is either new
or revelatory – it is something that any stranger on a train or
platform-sweeper could tell you – for this is general knowledge dressed up as philosophical
profundity.
For Heidegger everything within this enterprise of human engagement and
involvement with our world and everything that is in it, everything present
finds it meaning within this projection only insofar as they form part of it –
everything has its meaning and therefore its *Being*.
This is simply another version of “object givenness,” but this is object
givenness on a massive and global scale, for now all entities and beings in the
world are converted to Beinghood - THOUGH THAT IS PATENTLY AN IMPOSSIBLE
HUMAN TASK, for it is physically impossible even with a the world population
of 6 billion [2000] people to either position themselves *occurrently
alongside,* or *be amongst* the uncountable beings of the world - entities which
are to found in proliferation in the the world, or in the depths of the seas,
and upon the summits of the mountains, so the crazed Heideggerian idea that
*The Whole of Being* is instantiated by the process of *object givenness*
with the obligatory *human instantiator* in attendance isn’t worth the paper
that it is written upon.
Bottom line? No human - no meaning - no *Whole of Being.*
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 ---