Onderwerp: Dasein and the Gerundalisation of Philosophy 05
Dasein and the Gerundalisation of Philosophy 05
Jud wrote:
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.
Rene:
More clearly: all Dasein is je-meinig, it's always me in the center, and
so it is for everybody. Instead of the superfluous subjectivations above,
this is how things are
Jud:
Maybe every individual human being is self-centred - but that also means
that
every human being views the world and the objects in it DIFFERENTLY from
within
the inner core of the centre to the outer environment. Yes - we are all in
the world and part of the
world but we are all *being in the world differently.*
Do you see everything as your library colleagues see them?
Jud: [afore]
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”
Rene:
The attempts to start to complete were burnt - sometimes it's not even
enough to contradict oneself, one also has to burn oneself. And don't
forget the flagellation.
Jud:
And that was because he realised he had backed himself into an ontological
brick wall.
If he WOULD have written it - it would have destroyed BT as a work to be
taken seriously.
Jud [afore]
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,]
Rene:
Sow wind, and you'll reap a tornado.
Jud:
Doing you King Lear act again Renekins?
Where's Cordelia - gone to the ladies?
You remind me of my thespian days...
Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! rage! blow!
You cataracts and hurricanoes, spout
Till you have drench'd our steeples, drown'd the cocks!
You sulphurous and thought-executing fires,
Vaunt-couriers to oak-cleaving thunderbolts,
Singe my white head! And thou, all-shaking thunder,
Smite flat the thick rotundity o' the world!
Crack nature's moulds, and germens spill at once,
That make ingrateful man!
Jud:
[afore}
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.
Rene:
First you create a sensation - and then you destroy it. It's not more, Jud,
and you harm only yourself. Better listen to the help from Reno.
Jud:
You are confusing me with Heidegger and Goebbels. ;-)
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 Forest baby-speak - probably the cattle-drovers and
shit-shovellers of his youth spoke that way?
Rene:
What's wrong with shit-shoveling? Could your nightclub do without
shitshoveling?
Woe to him who hides shit.
Jud:
We were a little bit more sophisticated than Heidegger's peasants - we had
flushable toilets not holes in the ground.
Jud:[afore]
*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?
Rene:
That's already better: what incredible arrogance. He does all he can, but
it is
you who don't want to listen. As i go on affirming, this unwill is also
incapability. I don't mean you have to agree. (there is nothing to agree
with, only
to open up) But because the ready-to-hand etc. is nothing subjective, but
regards
everybody, you have to react. But you think you're above it. A failed
Platonist and
a failed transcendentalist. You can't say i warned you.
Meanwhile you have the gift of breaking into Heidegger's text, of 'reading
against
the grain, like almost noone. He, like Nietzsche differently, invites
opposition.
Jud:
All he can is not good enough! He was a philosophical twit - but his
twittyness is dangerous cos' it pollutes people's minds [specially the young]
with ideas that we don't need at this particular junction in our history.
You people were always asking me to lay off the N---bit and address his ideas
- but as I predicted I can expect no reasoned defence of his ideas [with the
exception perhaps of Philip] but the usual ad hom, which if cleverly
ratcheted up
has the affect of railroading the discussion away from a critique of WHAT HE
ACTUALLY WROTE into a cul de sac of WHY I DON'T ACCEPT IT and other rubbish
about nominalists being Platonists?& Well, now I AM reading his writings
closely and hermeneutically and guess what it is MORE stupid than I thought so in
the first place.
Rene:
:
Why can't you leave the man alone? If it would all be like you say it is, he
would
not be now what he is. As you say: philosophy is still not politics.
Jud:
An illogicality. The fact that thousands pour through the doors of
McDonald's every day
doesn't mean that Mr. McDonald deserves to be where he is today. The
activities of the hoi polloi [even the philosophical hoi polloi}
are no measure of significance or profundity. Anyway - the man Heidegger is
a side issue - It's his ideas that I am gunning for - not the man.
PS:
I can just see you as King Lear - riding along the tow-path hair streaming
out behind you ;-)
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 ---