Re: Eisegesis or Anagoges of Truth
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.
First this bit, Jud. - (Are you a Jute?)
Jud:
No, I'm a Celt,.but I can get along in Jutska and most Scandinavian dialects,
but I am getting rusty now for want of practice. Not many Jutes in Hesketh
Bank.
Rene:
That might be, but I think that Heidegger means by philosophy metaphysics,
of which the nihilist core comes out after more than 2000 years. (Compare
the incubation time of the principle of reason)
Jud:
Yes, but that is only a branch of philosophy [a line leading to a dead-end
in my book]
Reason hived off [was shed] from the *macrobody of thought* as the years
went by,
and reformed into separate disciplines of science. All that is left now is
the metaphysical rump
for old men and spotty youths to while away their time.
Rene:
It's indeed a strange thing that the cider-sipping citizen, who minds his
own business, is not independent
from this metaphysical 'happening', it at least can't be brought closer by
historical causal reasoning.
Jud:
No citizen can escape from the metaphysical brainwashing. It starts in the
cot and continues exponentially.
We poor sods don't even know we're being intellectually hung out to dry.
Rene:
Your insistence on concrete things and persons cuts you off from the domain
of metaphysical history, which is also your
room to move.
Jud:
No, it only cuts me off from the mindsets of metaphysicians.
History doesn't exist - only those metaphysicians who thought metaphysically
existed.
A *history* of metaphysics is imperfect account of those men and the way we
think they thought.
Rene:
Take Plato.
Jud:
No - you take Plato [joke]
Rene:
In no way can be explained how precisely the
historical Plato influenced Western philosophy. Reducing what the name
'Plato'
stands for, to an historical actual person, makes one lose philosophical
history on beforehand.
(Jud: Serious note: Excellent English Reno - *an* instead of *a* - most
English people fail on this one.)
Jud:
I don't *just* reduce what the name 'Plato' stands for, to an historical
actual person,
I reduce what the name 'Plato' stands for, to a *THINKING* historical actual
person.
In other words the way Plato existed as Plato. Our imperfect perception and
understanding of the thinking man
accounts for the different versions and the constant arguments about whether
he meant *this* or *that.*
before each individual's opinion is sent *upstairs* to take its place in the
ramshackle barn of *Being.*
Reno:
You don't want to know about this 'on beforehand', the
'always already', but that can only dissolve the fast-shrinking reality
that is
still left in this process. But you probably deny 'process' too.
Jud:
Oh, but I DO want to know about this 'on beforehand', the
'always already' - the difference is my view is a forensic one which
identifies
the crap and excises it bit by bit, until what's left on the slab
corresponds to some
sort of common-sense. I don't swallow the whole ontological offal in one
unconscious gulp.
For me *process* is the way a being exists at a particular point in time.
Reno
At the end of
your post can be seen what you're left with and what you have to offer to us:
what exists exists. p implies p. Thank you for nothing. Maybe MichaelP can
still
link you to Herakleitos,
Jud:
He is more likely to want to link me to an injection needle to induce
corediastasis, rather than plug me in to Herakleitos. ;-)
Reno:
I only see unwill and negativism.
Jud:
That's funny - that's exactly my view from this side of the chasm.
Reno:
Don't take this as ad hominem, because i treat you like Plato and
Nietzsche: we only count insofar
we're thinking or refuse thinking.
Jud:
I don't *refuse* thinking - I only refuse [reject after consideration] YOUR
type of thinking.
Reno:
The refusal of thinking being more philosophical than it can think itself,
because it contains the nihilist cancer,
that also tyrannically forbids the passage to new ways of thinking, and
treats them like thugs and terrorists.
Jud:
The refusal of METAPHYSICAL thinking is the mark of a mature thinker.
Metaphysicalism is NOT a *passage to new ways of thinking* it is a
fast-track back to barbarism which leads to war, slaughter, unhappiness,
and despair - it is bound to the concept of angst because it is
angst-producing. The thugs and terrorists of this world ARE metaphysicalists
as you would soon find out if you were abducted, or if you attended a
*religious ceremony* of American Fundamentalists - they are the scum of the earth!
Reno:
regards, good cure and best wishes ad hominem Jud
Jud:
I even enjoy being on the receiving end of ad hom now and again.
It affords me the opportunity to whip their little chubby transcendentalist
bottoms.
The metaphysical masochists called Heideggerians love a *bit of rough* -
that's
why the whip-wielding Heidegger attracted them in the first place them. ;-)
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.
Reno:
if p then p
if not-p, then not-p
Jud:
Brilliant - you are learning at last! Keep it up and we'll have you out of
theat library before you can say *Jack Robinson!* ;-)
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 ---