In a message dated 27/10/2004 17:15:44 GMT Standard Time,
R.B.M.deBakker@xxxxxx writes:
Jud wrote among other words ("...[]..." are the other words):
"...it absolves the observer from any ontological responsibility..."
Even here in the library-technology one has 'ontologies' now, though
no responsibility. One cannot oppose the fact that we *are*
ontologically. Ontologies re-enter via the technological backdoor.
The equipment is doing the ontology, once we refuse what was once started.
Nature itself has become a huge information container. And intelligence
spying.
I encountered again this passage in Nietzsche 1, 'Wtp as knowledge', first
paragraph, ending: "The unambiguous refusal of all philosophy is an attitude
always deserving respect; for it contains more of philosophy than it knows
itself."
Jud:
Yes fine but for every transcendental mumpsimus there is a nominalistic
sumpsimus.
I do not respect anyone who rejects all philosophy. Having said that there
are more sorts of philosophy
than you imagine. Many *ordinary* folk have philosophical attitudes that are
akin to the notions of certain
philosophers, though they themselves have never even heard of those
philosophers.
There is much *home-spun* philosophy that one can encounter over a pint of
cider in a village pub.
Onderwerp: Re: Eisegesis or Anagoges of Truth
Jud: [earlier]
First I set out my table as to the idealistic view THEORETICAL view of
human 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:
I agree with Malcolm: you're also very funny.
You're insofar right, and i wrong, that when i read your piece again, i
saw that you had included perception and observer too. You have not
however, solved the difficulty that exists between an-sich-reality and
perception.
A question: would you say that billions of years ago, before a man walked
around on it, the earth existed as it existed? I don't mean: can you imagine
this earth and then abstract from all perception, because that is what one
factically does with such a question. There seems to be something unnatural,
maybe even indecent, in this experiment, i feel. Not Greek cunning, but
modern slyness.
Jud:
You don't need to go back billions of years ago, before a man walked on
earth.
Just look up at the Mars. There are no men there at the moment.
Mars exists in the way that it exists. There is NO POSSIBILITY that it
doesn't
exist in the way that it exists, where or not there are humans there, or
little polka-dot furzibles
with five streeble-weeps for legs. No imagination is NECESSARY in order to
understand that the electric-fan above your desk exists in the way that it
exists. If it didn't exist in the way it exists - it simply wouldn't be there
above your desk.
Now what in a month of sundays is remotely unnatural, or even indecent
about that - it is simply common sense.
Try this out. Grab a pen, shove it under the nose of one of your colleagues
in the library and ask them:
*Excuse me - but could you kindly tell me if this pen exists in the way that
it exists?*
Now I know that you won't di this, because you know that if you DID then you
would make a fool of yourself,
because you know what the answer would be - they would say:
*Of COURSE it does you silly old fool - go back to your desk and take an
asprin!*
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:
Just add the quote, that same: "We can make assertions that are complete
and totally accurate descriptions of objects", which i just forgot to do,
apply hermeneutically what is said about reality, to the reality and
identity of the words used, and then will appear, but i cannot make it
appear in you, that nominalism is really (an opposition to) Platonism.
We don't want to get stuck in this opposition, like the whole of analytical
philosophy, and not only philosophy, has gotten stuck in false oppositions.
But overcome Platonism and nihilism (of which nominalism is a part) at the
same time. And for that Nietzsche is to be taken seriously.
Jud:
Nominalism IS NOT a nihilism. To oppose Platonic lunacy is not nihilistic.
It is a responsible thing to do.
We have NO DESIRE to eliminate the abstractions
which are so convenient for language. What we DO want to effect is the
irresponsible
employment of these abstractions by scatterbrained sill people like
Heidegger to create spurious ontologies, which contribute to the
reversal of human progress and the setting-back of human understanding by
thousands of years.
We do not want to destroy society, denude language of abstractions,
assassinate the pope,
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?
Rene:
It has nothing to do with Herr Nietzsche, but with his thought. It still
has survived all the efforts to surpass or ridicule him. If you want to try
again, you're welcome, but don't blame me when you get all shit shoveled
back
to where it belongs.
Jud:
It has EVERYTHING to do with him because HE WAS THE FELLOW THAT WROTE IT.
His [repressed] homosexuality and the hatred of women, the disease gnawing
away at his brain-tissue, plus his other hang-ups manifested itself
in his output. The postmodernist crap about text or writing being *out
there* like some disembodied spiritualist's ectoplasmic primer
completely divorced from the guy who wrote it is utter codswallop.
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:
Nietzsche: "Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his
memory
is too good."
Jud:
Better tell your students not to bother remembering anything then. ;-)
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.
Rene:
You really think so. You're even a permafrost Platonist
Jud:
Hahahah!. It's OK I have my thermal underpants on permanently
Rene:
I once wrote - how
long ago that seems - , that in the North of Siberia nature and logic are
one again.
Jud:
What about New York when its locked in a winter deep freeze?
If men can survive in the arctic wastes of Siberia-they do it by being
logical
not by reading Heidegger. If they did it that way they would be frozen to
death with
BT icebound to their ass
Rene:
Nietzsche somewhere describes the room of nihilism.
Jud:
No such place exists other than in the delirious brain of a terminally sick
madman,
He probable mistook the padded-cell in which he was incarcerated for
Buckingham Palace too. ;-)
Rene:
There's also a corner where the Ding an sich freezes to death.
Jud:
Even steel can freeze.
Rene:
Whatever the 'truth' Kelvin established, isn't it an utter act of nihilism
to reach for temperatures that
leave no movement at all? To lose all 'responsibility' for reality?
Jud:
I hold that that which is real and exists in the way it exists exists.
Real entities yes. *Reality* no. I do NOT accept your *ities* and your
*nesses*, and your *ings*
they are just abstractional conveniences which do not in themselves exist
they are just grammatical signification bereft of nominata.
Rene:
(or to say: science-based mechanical killing has a history, and it's also
yours)
Jud:
It is the trannie fanatics who bomb, shoot, drown, burn, gas, and otherwise
exterminate other trannies - not the men in white coats
who are the paid servants of such monsters.
Jud:
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:
All that has been understood very well without western science, and it is
typical
that you adduce everyday examples.
Jud:
All we have are *everydays* there ARE no other everydays.
Rene:
This science now however is no longer adapted
to man and his world. We, with our Umwelt, are incorporated into it.
Jud:
Go and live in the jungle then. ;-)
Rene:
That's the screaming reality, as it works, and of which you say that you
don't want it.
No responsibility.
Jud:
I didn't say I don't want it? I said I accept real things but not some
stupid fiction called *reality*
Everyone on earth has his or her own special *reality* which one do you want
to foist on everybody else? Yours?
I am responsible for and to my own entities, my dear wife and extensive
family, my friends and neighbours.
I do what I can. I am a school governor. I support [and get off my arse] to
help environmental charities.
If I see paper blowing in the street I pick it up and place it in the bin. I
am not on drugs, nor am I an alcoholic so I am no drain on the public purse
and so I do not cost the
National health serve a penny. What more can I do - fly to Washington and
take out the toads?
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
The problem is the *object givenness* is NOT open - just a crack in the door
- and it is this crack in the door which is processed the Heideggerian
understanding and sent *upstairs* into *The Warehouse of *Being* above.*
The problems Nietzsche had were of his own making. If he had steered clear
of prostitutes he wouldn't have gone mad
and unloaded his gunge onto the poor suffering reading classes. I can't help
him now.
If he were alive today I would be the first one to help him find the
necessary drugs. I feel sorry for him - but it's too late now.
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:
It's just not interpretation. (years ago Daniel McGrady made this point).
You see
the tree before you, do you? Well then. We take it for granted, and *that's*
the
problem.
Jud:
Please don't include nominalists in those bomb-dropping trannie activities -
what the hell did H expect would be dropped in his desires to rip back the
*lost* bits of Germania? Cornish pasties? What did he expect his workers and
soldiers to do when he urges them to get marching [rectoral address]
go to war with pop-guns?
Rene:
Not instantly, but after a couple of hundred years indifference, the bombs
explode.
Jud:
Not instantly, but after a couple of hundred years indifference, the ancient
Greeks unleashed burning naphtha on the half-naked bodies of other people
So what - what is different? The romans crucified living men the Germans
gassed them - what's the big deal? The Belgians created bloody havoc in Africa.
The British bombed Dresden. Its just a matter of scale, and the wickedness of
modern transcendentalists is no worse than that of the Greek
transcendentalists. Well? Isn't it?
Rene:
Still some only see (prey) the actual throwers, and still don't see the
bombs, because these have apparently become self-evident. Bombs, tourism,
agricultural
industry, it all exists as it exists? Refusing responsibility, while
accusing others,
has become the strategy of the West, and it is not enough.
Jud:
What's so wrong with ordinary factory works seeing the world. As long as it
is controlled some countries rely on it.
Agricultural industry? What do you want to do - go back to growing potatoes
in the flowerbeds? This is not a philosophical problem - its a POLITICAL
problems. Instead of the youth wasting their bloody time studying Heidegger,
they should be educated as to the political system and how it has been hijacked
by a lot of trannie slimeballs.
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.
Rene:
I'll tell you that it takes a long time before you SEE a point like this,
read the words as they stand there. A consequence is though, that one will
never forget it again.Have you thought how those all-too-many books did come
into existence?
Or did the pope of existence relieve from further inquiry?
Jud:
THAT truth is inexpressible because it is NOT truth. You Rene have got
things
COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY THE WRONG WAY AROUND.
It is not the imagined *truth* of the transcendentalist which cannot be
expressed in terms of correspondence
it is THE ENTITIC TRUTH WHICH IS INCOMMUNICABLE.
Heideggerians and Husserlians kid themselves that the results of their
*object givenness* delivers them *Being*
Nothing could be further from the truth - for the real truth still remains
ungrasped [covered] in the entity.
The grotesque version of *Being* which they mistakenly instantiates is not
*Being* at all.
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 experiential memorialisation together with *present
experience* - as *Being in the World.*
Rene: I would say that differently, but you mentioned time. So we have
things that
we are ourselves,
Jud:
NO! WE DO NOT *HAVE* ourselves WE *ARE* ourselves.
Rene:
as there are things we are not ourselves, a totality
(not summative) called world, in which alone things appear.
Jud:
Yes.
Rene:
And we, if we relate to things, always also relate to world.
Jud:
NO! *World* doesn't exist - it is a fantasy. However THE world - with is
another word for planet Earth certainly exists.
*World* is just a trannie fantasy.
Rene:
So world and being-in-the-word
must have to do with openness, but also with time.
Jud
*World,* is a transcendentalist fantasy-word. A metaphor for *our lives and
the various activities and experiences of our relationships with other human
and non-human entities.* *Being in the world* is exactly the same thing in a
gerundial form. Openness is simply a word we use to describe an existential
mode of some entity. A flower opening its petals, a door opening, an *open*
person who doesn't try to conceal things.
THere are millions of *open* entities but NO OPENNESS.
Rene:
These are not things, but phenomena, even simple phenomena, that can't be
explained away, without also giving things away. (Rilke's dummy's)
Jud:
The notion of *phenomena is crazy-talk. *phenomena* is just a way of
describing any state of an entity or entities, or process of an entity or entities
which known through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning. So these
things you mention. *World, Being in the world, and *openness are no more
than activities than can be reduced or traced back to entities.
Jud:
The biggest *fundaments* in Britain right now are Blair and the other
assholes who give him support.
I have no believe in reality - only what is real.
Rene:
Again: how to decide what is real?
Strange: you want to save real things, but are not willing to deal with
reality.
Who's confused?
Jud:
Repeat - I believe in what is real - not reality.
My belief in *truth*
equates with *that which is true,* which equates with *that which exists as
it
exists.*
Rene:
You mean that truth is truth of being?
No you don't mean that.
But then you don't leave the domain of mere words. You cannot erase the
uncertain
words 'existence' and 'truth', so you don't want them to mean anything.
Jud:
Hahaha! It's not a question of me not WANTING them to mean anything.
It is of no matter what I think or want - they don't MEAN anything - so end
of story.
Rene:
Heidegger took Kant's usage of 'existence', which goes together with actual
perception (position) - the difference of 100 possible and 100 actual
Euro's -
as a starting point onto a less certain domain.
Jud:
Two crazy men together. There is no such thing as *100 possible euros,* and
there is CERTAINLY no DIFFERENCE between an idea [of 100 possible euros] and
100 actual Euro's. I have never heard such a preposterous and more childish
idea in my whole life.
Jud:
To describe an object as *that which exists in the way it exists* is to
neutralise
Rene: ..reify once more
Jud.
No not reify. The act of describing an object as existing in the way it
exists is THE ONLY WAY THAT A HUMAN can correctly identify the way an exists,
whilst abrogating the necessity or compunction to describe this actual way it
exists - which is impossible anyway.
Jud:
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,*
Rene:
The real fantasy originates when at last you're going to say what it is that
exists as it exists, apart from experience and how you're able to reach the
other side of the abyss, while the latest science simply admits it cannot,
with the best will, accomplish a trip more wonderful than from Plato's cave
to the shining light itself.
Jud:
I am willing to state publicly that any object in the cosmos exists in the
way it exists.
How do I know? because if it didn't - it wouldn't exist at all.
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 ---