In a message dated 29/10/2004 16:52:14 GMT Standard Time,
R.B.M.deBakker@xxxxxx writes:
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 efficiency that gas affords as a method
that offends
you?
Rene:
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.
Jud:
Look - Get real Rene. Heidegger helped plan gas-attacks by telling the
field commanders which way the wind was going to blow.
Heidegger was a N--- and the N---- gassed the Jews, Pinks, Gypsies and God
knows who else.
Whether YOU like it or not - there is a connection. I am not saying that
because Heidegger *fought* for his country, and that fighting
involved him in being involved in gassing allied troops, [including those of
your own countrymen who fought on after Holland's defeat] that it means that
he was also involved PHYSICALLY in gassing the Jews, etc. because he wasn't.
But he and every other German who voted for the N---- P----- was complicit
in their crimes - because those that had ears and eyes in their head KNEW
what 8th letter's attitude was regarding them.
What have you got under that desk? A bucket of sand that you bury your head
in, when ugly facts appear about your ugly hero?
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.
Jud:
Please inform me - I hang upon your every Logos.
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.
Rene:
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.
Jud:
{jaw slackened in absolute disbelief]
I am absolutely gobsmacked that there exists in a Dutch university a man in
a position of some authority who doesn't know that a subject-predicate
sentence does not need a concrete subject. This revelation puts our discussion on a
completely new level.
I suppose that in Ancient Greece before the nature of syphilis was
understood people didn't get the clap?
{shakes head in utter disbelief.] God in heaven - what is HAPPENING to our
universities?
Jud:
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:
Any English child could tell you that the *it* is pronoun for *the weather
system.*
It is no different from *he* standing in the place of *Rene.*
Interestingly enough the ignoramus and *grammatically challenged* Heidegger
shared this lack of understanding.
Here is a snip from Grundbegriffe.
Heidegger:
"Suppose we say, to stay with the weather, "it rains." Here the "is" does
not present itself at
all, and yet we mean that something actually "is. "But what is the point of
all this fuss over
the empty little word "is"? The indeterminacy and
emptiness of the word "is" is not eliminated by putting a noun in place of
the "is" and
pronouncing the name "being." At best, it is even increased."
snip
Jud:
NO! The trannies gave the razor to the children.
Rene:
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.
Jud:
Trannies control everything including the war machines of all countries.
The men in white coats don't push the button that opens the bomb-doors - its
some brainwashed trannie from Milwaukee or Middlewich.
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.
Rene:
He could not establish the distinction, without also establishing the
dualism.
Jud:
The dualism was establish two thousand years before by Plato [ugh!]
DesCartes was just a trannie up-dater. A progressive but a up-dater of dead
ideas all the same.
Rene:
By that, he determined the way philosophy would take: the spreading of
subjectivity
through ALL of reality.
Jud:
*Philosophy* doesn't exist to do NUTTIN! Philosophers exist to spread
subjectivity
Rene:
And, strangely, that's where Spinoza comes in. To whom
reacts Leibnitz. Kant slows down. But then Spinoza gets virulent in absolute
idealism,
and Fichte -indeed Tympan- is the victim:
Jud:
VICTIM - SCHMICKDIM! We've all got a brain in our heads haven't we?
Who NEEDS Spinoza and Leibnitz and Kant and Fichte? Can't anybody think for
themselves anymore? Is this where transcendentalist zombification
has finally taken us, where people can actually BLAME some dickhead who has
been DEAD for hundreds of years to make excuses for their own
intellectual inadequacy? Under pressure? Quote Nietzsche. Being
criticised? Blame Spinoza. Murdered someone? Blame Kant.
Is this the transcendentalist paradise you pray for?
Rene:
Pantheism is close to atheism or nihilism.
Jud:
Who gives a tinker's fart? The average person in the street is more interest
ed in Madonna's knickers.
Rene:
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.
Jud:
You are starting to sound like mega-name-dropper Tympan Alley referencing as
if there was no tomorrow.
What does it MATTER what Jacobi *agreed8 with Lessing or what he wrote to
Fichte?
The problem that faces us is the hordes of trannie fanatics who are going to
blow up your university's
dining room and the towpath that you ride your bike along.
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. Malcolm is misleading the Swede, when he says that
Heidegger *named* the Nietzsche lectures his 'confrontation' with
National Socialism. He should have added WHEN they were so named.
I bet you A POUND TO A PINCH OF SHIT that he didn't *name them* his
*confrontation' with
National Socialism. * while his mörderische Freunde were still in power?
As a fly on the wall I can hear Arendt's voice now - "Tell 'em the Nietzsche
lectures were your way of fighting N---sm Meine Leibling - they'll lap it
up!"
That con-trick was all *worked up* as part of his post-war - post - time -
served *new image* as the democratic *mole* in lederhosen, who worked within
the party (like 007) to nudge it in a different philo-Semitic direction. We
need to be vigorous in our cross-referencing. Textual changes and dates must
be checked with more rigour - the public must be getting fed up with these
glosses, even if they make the publishers happy.
Malcolm:
In these he offers a critique of Nazism from the
perspective of a philosophical insider disappointed by the limitations
of an ideology he had extravagantly high hopes for.
Jud:
Marines? Marines? Where are you when you are needed to be told something?
Jud:
As late as 1953, Heidegger was still affirming the "inner truth and
greatness" of the Nazi movement.
Malcolm:
According to Heidegger Nazism 'came close' to an authentic philosophical
revolution
in the history of being yet fell back into the technicism of the 'will to
will' which is an amoral will to order for the sake of the constant
expansion of order.
Jud:
This is an old chestnut Malcolm - I'm VERY surprised that you retail it in
this way with any covering Aussie-bloke comment.
Jud:
Heidegger was totally GUTLESS. The only time he showed his yellow alopex
lagopus teeth is when
the little runt was poncing around the corridors upsetting his colleagues.
As soon as he was stripped of power - he faded into the wallpaper and became
his usual obsequious self.…
The
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.
Rene: 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.
JUd:
Are we finally reduced to anecdotal stories - to what depth has philosophy
descended?
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...
Jud:
I await your news with bated breath - who can they be I wonder?
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.*
Rene:
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.
Jud:
You are wriggling and trying to evade the point Renekins. If I have my
*object givenness* which is uploaded into the *Warehouse of Being* - and you have
your version of *object givenness* which is also uploaded into the Warehouse
of Being, that means that *Being* is composed of differing versions.
In other words its an ontological nightmare. Now COME ONE, old chap -
let's have an answer - for you appear to be the *man of the moment* spokesperson
for Heideggerianism, who everyone now looks up to as *Leader.* {including
the drunk's upward-view from the pavement] The rostrum is yours.
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 the 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.
Rene:
Hey, i miss that part, where i was so clever.
Jud:
A nice deflection - but there's not a single clap in the auditorium I'm
afraid.
Rene:
Thus you helped me reading Heidegger better.
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.
Rene:
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.
Jud:
Sneak in with him? It would be like joining up with Fagin to pickpocket the
goyim.
Jud:
I can - I've got him sussed wit as the biggest phoney in philosophy.
Rene: 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.
Jud:
No Rene - what is growing *weirder* is your reaction now that I am actually
investigating this con-man in more depth,
rather than concentrating on his political involvement. I find it quite
amusing actually.
Rene:
Fundamentalism has entered the void of the nothing, because there's no
counterweight.
snip
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.
Rene:
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.
Jud:
The Russians have always been trannies - just like the Yanks ands everybody
else.
Snip
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.
Rene:
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.
Jud:
It's because they watch TRANNIE television since they're babies, so that
they don't know what the world is, not even what a
world is. With a *fat-loaded* diet of *Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Church
services, and *compulsory* philosophy classes on *Heidegger* and turds
like Blair on the box - what chance do they have?
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 ;-)
Rene:
Well, i'm ready for the war, i guess.
Jud:
If Tranniedom keeps on behaving like it is right now - you won't have long
to wait.
And those Amsterdam canals - they are so nice - what a shame to lose them.
;-(
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 ---