-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens
GEVANS613@xxxxxxx
Verzonden: vrijdag 29 oktober 2004 16:06
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: GEVANS613@xxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: Eisegesis or Anagoges of Truth
In a message dated 29/10/2004 10:49:49 GMT Standard Time,
R.B.M.deBakker@xxxxxx writes:
Jud:
Is the word G--s banned now as well as N---?
Rene:
No, its the connection you made, that is sickening. Not words are sick,
but the one doing sick things with them. Mind that i don't say: "Jud is
sick",
THAT would be by far too essentialist.
Jud:
Isn't the use of gas MORE sickening? The word *gas* was used as part of a
list of other ways that transcendentalist murder people - why try to eliminate
that particular *Pure-German* trannie method of killing fellow
Jewish-German trannies? Is it the effeciency that gas affords as a method that offends
you?
No Jud, don't try to blame me for what you did: connecting the meteorological
job of Heidegger in a war, wherein on both sides gas was used, with sthing
very different, the genocide on Jews a.o., mostly by gas.
Rene:
Heidegger never, in his writings, utters subject-predicate statements.
Jud:
Oh really? How interesting. Then he was the only person in the history of
the world who managed to write that way?
There are many more.
Please explain how he does this
linguistic marvel? Then tell me please what all these subject and predicate
structures are doing in this typical chunk of Heideggerian text? you will find
below. Every complete sentence contains two parts: a subject and a predicate. The
subject is what (or whom) the sentence is about, while the predicate tells
something about the subject. In the following sentences, the predicate is
enclosed in braces ({}), while the subject is highlighted.
They are not statements, because they don't concern concrete or abstract
matters. I don't say they cannot be treated like statements, it's done
all the time.
To make this more clear, one could add, that BEFORE the first Greek
grammaticians, also was not spoken in S-P sentences. Only after Plato's
first linguistic efforts, and Aristotle's logical treatises, could
grammaticians and logicians start. Of themselves they never have sthing.
So we have to get rid of them, and make a new beginning.
A clue before you start
Elfriede and her Alsatian dog [subject] {run on the beach every morning}
predicate.
'Transcendentalism' [subject] (does not think.')
To determine the subject of a sentence, first isolate the verb from the
sentence-string and then make a question by placing "who?" or "what?" before it
-- the answer is the subject.
Heidegger's [non-predicational?] sentences.
(1) <We> [subject] (can fail to hear the claim of the incipient.)
predicate
(2) Indeed, <we> subject (can not only fail to hear the claim of the
incipient, but even drive ourselves to the self-delusion that we do not have to
listen to it in the first place, since we already "know" about it.) predicate
(3) <The whole world> [subject] (talks about the extraordinary "cultural"
significance of the ancient Greeks.)
(4) But <no one> [subject] (who speaks like this has the slightest knowledge
that, and how, an inception occurs there) predicate
(5) <Those who evince> [subject] (a somewhat belated enthusiasm for
"classical antiquity.") predicate
Rene:
But all those critical anti-essentialists apply them to themselves.
One example: 'science does not think'.
Suffices, i think. If someone does not think, would you say he or she
is the subject of that non-thinking? Same with 'i have forgotten',
Jud:
There is no other way that ANYBODY, whether they are anti-essentialists or
anti-disestablishmentarianists, can apply these words
other than as classical *subject - predicate sentences* - what on earth are
you struggling to say here Renekins?
I thought you were familiar with the idea that language might put one
on the wring foot. 'It rains.'
Jud:
[earlier]
What next in your metaphysical 1984? Yes, but Klee -
he was only flying meteorological kites tricked out in bright shapes and
colours in the forms of dragon's heads and fat-ladies' bloomers.
for the amusement of the uniformed workers in the trenches. A friend of
mine knew his daughter [whether in the biblical sense or not I do not know
or
care] Klee's was obsessed with the virus of metaphysics too, as was a
singular book, The Thinking Eye, which was conceived in terms of an all
embracing
theory of visual "equivalents" for *spiritual states.* In other words -
another trannie nutter. His pretty pictures may look decorative, and may
have
entertained the troops, but his spiritualalistically stuffed mind was as
pestiferous as a poacher's pocket.
Rene:
Ah, entartete Kunst.
Cave...
Jud:
Degenerate art indeed - but not so degenerate as the twee ersatz *classical
kitsche* of the Third Reich.
Mind you, the stone penises make handy hooks for hanging your coat on.
Rene:
'Metaphysical rump' reminds me of What is metaphysics?: "The rootage of the
sciences in their essential ground is dead."
Jud:
Who gives a flying monkey's f--- as long as it allows us to have a
root-filling carried
out on a dead root at the dentist's, without the excruciating agony
experienced by your trannie anti-science hordes before *science* came to
their aid?
Yes, science broke free from its primitive past and put down new taproots
in the soil of sensibility.
Rene:
Not human, but machine sensibility.
You give a razor to a child, and when it starts crying, you beat it.
Jud:
NO! The trannies gave the razor to the children.
The trannies, the trannies! There have always been trannies, Jud,
but trannies with atom bombs only quite recently.
Your idea of science and its implications, is very weird, or let's
say idealistic.
Rene:
Descartes' tree of the sciences now hangs in the air and blows with any
wind, and where once was root now is nothing: a very
real nothing that sucks (nichtet) as long as it is ignored.
Jud:
Thus perish all dualists!
Rene:
And with them all the science based on the subject-object distinction, as
established by Descartes? You're sawing the branch you're sitting on.
Jud:
Descartes didn't establish the subject-object distinction, that is the way
that humans have been
uttering meaningful sentences since they began to speak.
Descartes attempted to establish a dualism between mind and body, which is
a TOTALLY different and ridiculous concept.
He could not establish the distinction, without also establishing the dualism.
By that, he determined the way philosphy would take: the spreading of subjectivity
through ALL of reality. And, strangely, that's where Spinoza comes in. To whom
reacts Leibniz. Kant slows down. But then Spinoza gets virulent in absolute idealism,
and Fichte -indeed Tympan- is the victim: pantheism is close to atheism or nihilism.
Jacobi, who agreed with Lessing on Spinoza, wrote to Fichte: i scold idealism nihilism
And already we hear Nietzsche, to whom these relations were not hidden, and who is
both attracted by, and pushed off by Spinoza and Hegel.
So, Descartes' dualism, which should not be taken absolute, because what is not thinking
substance is, as res extensa, clearly knowable for a subject.
Reno:
Heidegger had the guts to tell this to the scientists in 1929. We're held
chess since. Almost a century later these scientists, your heroes, declare
that they don't know.
Jud:
They dare not have argued back at him [one must be careful with madmen]
otherwise they would have ended up in a certain Polish village noted for
its barbed wire encampments - but HALT! Is the word *barbed wire* permitted
in this Malice's Wonderland?
Those scientists - They don't know WHAT?
Rene:
Leading scientists,
Jud:
C'mon Rene -who ARE these *leading scientists* of whom you speak?
Lets have a few names please.
I got it from someone who was at a recent meeting on theoretical physics.
The father of the string theory, a German American (Suesskind?) told about the
anthropic factor. I myself cannot count till ten.
Rene:
...now, they are finding out and declaring that the science
they're involved in, has nothing to do with truth anymore. So now they have
to accept an anthropic factor at the base of their quest for the final one
formula (not to be confounded with interfering perception in QM).
Jud:
Quotes and references please.
coming soon...
Rene:
Your insistence on beings without Being, and truths without truth, leads to
complete confusion. (cf. Einstein and his stoned god)
Jud:
Your confused. The can be no truths without *truth* for *truths* is simply
the plural of *truth.*
So it follows that if *truth* is missing there can be no *truths.*
that was my point with real things and reality...
Do you only have warm days or hours, is there no summer over there?
It's easier to turn the earth around than to change phenomena.
As the actuality of an entity existing in the way it exists is a fact and a
fact is the truth - then the
the actuality of an entity existing in the way it exists is a truth.
As ALL entities exist in the way they exist al entities are truths.
I refer to *entitic *truth of course and not the human *versions* of truth
that end up becoming part of your precious *Being.*
i have mine, you have yours. they don't meet, so it seems more fruitful
to discuss texts. i've found an exquisite page on 'beings as a whole'.
Maybe i'll bring it next week.
Rene:
I mean, not YOUR insistence, i don't listen to YOU, i listen to the logos
that you speak, but which not you have made. So you and i and everybody
always say more than they actually speak, one can't help it.
Jud:
I do not HAVE any *insistence* I am only [ I exist in a modality of being]
*insistent.*
The *Logos?* Please don't include me in on perhaps most fundamental, the
most familiar Heideggerian idea that “language speaks” for it is “a minacious
intimation of *the eighth letter's* brand of inspiration, of the
*fourteenth letter's* use of the human voice as
*a trumpet played upon by immense, numinous agencies beyond the puny will or
judgement of rational man.*
(Denis Dutton - _http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/dutton.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/dutton.htm)
Rene:
Thus you helped me reading Heidegger better.
Hey, i miss that part, where i was so clever.
Jud.
Good that is part of my intention.
Rene:
That respect for the rejection of all philosophy appeared not to be respect
for a person, oh no, it was respect
for something that was left out, but for essential reasons. Heidegger the
fox... For a while i was in his trap, but you helped me out.
Jud:
You are not the only one to have been caught in his trap. He traps people
with coiled words which look insouciant, but which snap shut
on the unwary, and leave them to die as their intellectual lifeblood drains
away into the pestilential bog of mythical blut and soil.
No no, -- you're asking for it! -- he shows how one really is in one's
own trap, mostly when one is trying to sneak in with him.
This knowledge is Hannah's child. It's all opposite: one cannot get near
someone like Heidegger. But that's the real annoyance.
Your opposition and blaming is getting weirder and weirder, the more we
talk Jud. It's the fate of everyone that tries to stay out of nihilism.
It's in all of us, and the only thing to be respected, if you're ready
now to understand.
Rene:
Fundamentalism has entered the void of the nothing, because there's no
counterweight.
Jud:
No, it has entered the void of the nothing, because of all the
countenancing it receives from Heideggerianism,
Rene:
Nietzsche's "confounding of cause and effect." There's first the institutions
and the students, and only then the question, whatfor. They don't make the
nothing they're in, they just arrange themselves. More or less like the
terrorists.
That's nihilist logic, the logic of decadence.
Jud:
As long as the poison of religion and transcendentalism is dispensed to them
- it will ever be thus.
Baltimore or Baghdad - Calcutta or California - Tokyo or Trincamalee - the
transcendentalist toxins are dispensed and the wars line-up waiting to happen.
Russia only became a threat to Western Europe, once it could mobilize
efficiently. The technological capacities and abilities - incl. the
hijacking of planes - are the fear arousing factors, not the age-old
customs and beliefs. Then it would have been always and everywhere like
it is now.
Rene:
You always give with one hand, what you take with the other. First Being is
childish
nonsense, then this childish nonsense is able to destroy science.
Jud:
No. Transcendentalism takes the ORDERED AND PAID FOR products of science
and DESTROYS ITSELF.
Rene:
At least you have to investigate how it can do that, what is the void into
which it would dive.
Jud:
Read Malcolm, Jan, Bob, MichaelP and the others - they have been discussing
the nature of the void recently
Rene:
But you're the prisoner of your own presuppositions: that everything, incl.
language and concepts is solely of human making. Now there's the trouble.
Jud:
Now I detect that you are falling back to your last religious redoubt as the
ontological Zulus storm your trannie barricades?
Loosen your red coat and offer up a prayer for a deliverance from these
pesky black facts and uncomfortable entitic truths, before the assegai of
finitude is thrust between the bright medals of metaphysicalism that shine on your
breast. ;-)
Jud:
a yersinia pestis of despair and ignorance which has infected our
universities.
Rene:
How is that possible, philosopher?
Jud:
Because philosophy has been hijacked by tranniedom and the zombification of
philosophical life has drained away all rationality and common-sense and
lateral thinking.
But not because they have read Heidegger. It's because they watch television
since they're babies, so that they don't know what the world, not even what a
world is.
First they're made weak, fat, afraid, then they evt. arrive at the university,
that meanwhile has become also fat, weak etc., and then the really innocent play
starts, and never will anyone have to fear from these. It's a far more grave
decapitation than the Arab.
All widerwille against what is left of metaphysics, can only strengthen
its grip, that feeds from the nothing.
Jud:
It thrives in the sludge of ignorance that beclouds the bottom of the
transcendental tank - it is a *bottom-feeder.*
A catfish of cogitation.
Rene: Idem dito. The rhetorics really threatens the rhetor.
Jud:
Idem dito.
optimistically
Rene
Jud:
You need to come up for air Renekins - the pollution down there is no good
for man or mouse. ;-)
Rene:
I'm getting healthier every day. From the inside.
Jud:
Yes, I heard that powered tulip-leaves makes a good laxative ;-)
Well, i'm ready for the war, i guess.
regards
rene
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 ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---