In a message dated 01/11/2004 12:38:54 GMT Standard Time,
R.B.M.deBakker@xxxxxx writes:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FJ30Aa01.html
"Look in his eyes, it's all lies"
-----------------------------------
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/susskind03/susskind_index.html
"The kind of answer that this or that is true because if it were
not true there would be nobody to ask the question is called the
anthropic principle." (Susskind)
Jud:
Why? Oh why IS IT that Heideggerians are ALWAYS selective when providing a
quotation?
You selectively provided the first relevant comment then excise the most
important run-on sentence which follows?
Of course I am well used to this chicanery having experienced the Thomasian
version with old Anthony of Aquino that great Neapolitan [sadly departed]I
will restore the FULL comment concerning the *anthropic principle* as it SHOULD
have been presented:
"The kind of answer that this or that is true because if it were not true
there would be nobody to ask the question is called the anthropic principle.
Most physicists hate the anthropic principle. It is said to represent
surrender, a giving up of the noble quest for answers. But because of unprecedented
new developments in physics, astronomy and cosmology these same physicists are
being forced to reevaluate their prejudices about anthropic reasoning. There
are four principal developments driving this sea change. Two come from
theoretical physics, and two are experimental or observational.
Rene:
Is this now 'the same' as when Heidegger says that to Being
belongs man?
Jud:
No. You have failed to understand it.
Entities exist - Being doesn't.
Entities don't exist in a state of *belonging* to anyone. Your jacket
doesn't exist in a state of belonging to you - you exist in a state of considering
the jacket as belonging to you. *Being* doesn't *belong* to man of anybody
else. *Being* doesn't exist as the honourable list-guru will confirm, and I
wholeheartedly agree with him for once. Anything that doesn't exist cannot
*belong* to anyone, because nobody can own something that doesn't exist to be
owned.
If I said that the nine-legged indigo threeble-eater which lives on the
planet Wurble-Thrix belonged to me, you would laugh, and in the same way if you
say that you possess *Being* or it belongs to you - I laugh at you.
Rene:
It is insofar 'the same', as the objective passion of physics
- itself a metaphysical passion - cannot get lose from 'world',
universe and physis, for instance by being after their unified formule.
Jud:
There is no such thing as: *the objective passion of physics* - what exists
are scientists passionately
interested in discovering how the cosmos operates - its history - its
constitution - its laws.
There is nothing metaphysical about physics other than some of the workable
constructs such as number and
time which are essential for their computations. Scientists have no desire
to *get loose from 'world', or the universe and physis,* to escape from the
actuality within which they live and operate. They are not Whirling Dervishes
or Heideggerians.
Rene:
They remain words, which in their current meaninglessness, cannot
stop asking for meaning. Still for Nietzsche: the meaning for life.
Jud:
Nietzsche was nuts - there is no *meaning* for/to life. Objects (including
humans] exist in the way that they exist, and there is no great *Being* in the
sky who has mapped out some heavenly schema in which we play a *meaningful*
part or role. This is what trannies constantly fail to face-up to - the fact
that the universe doesn't give a tinker's toss about them. So what do they
do? Do they face it like men? No, they find a dark corner of *philosophy* and
huddle down on the Heideggerian haunches and blub about it.
Scientific terminology is for the most part very strict as to its semantic
meaning - it is the obfuscatory language
of transcendentalism which lacks any meaning whatsoever.
Guys like Einstein, Susskind and all the white-coated ones who ever lived or
who ever will live in the future CANNOT refute the anthropic principle.
*An entity exists in the way that it exists, and not in the way that humans
perceive it to exist.* Therefore the juvenile *Object giveness* and *Being*
notion which originated with Husserl and was picked up by heidegger is
revealed for what it always was - a nauseous philosophical corruption - a puerile
failure of grown-up cognition. The ontological moonbeams of silly
twentieth-century metaphysicians. The ET [entitic truth] principle is an
incontrovertible, irrefutable, necessarily true circularity or perfect tautology
Rene:
But 'life' ITSELF has become since an exclusive scientific notion, that is:
scientific object, of which then *again* might be asked what
it is good for, maybe for another life form than our impotent one.
Jud:
No, it hasn't - life is the same as it has always been - *Life* is a word
which describes that period between being born and dying or death.
People don't even THINK exclusively about *science* when they are making
love, playing conkers or having fun. ;-) Anyway, humans have ALWAYS been
involved in thinking scientifically, from the days when the first human picked up
a thighbone of an ox and clouted his enemy of the head with it.
Why should we listen to a gang of kooks that want humanity to turn theirs
backs on science and return again to the world of religious thuggery and
shamans, and troop back into Plato's cave and settle down in the darkness again
with their worry-beads?
I'll tell you staright now - YOU HAVE NO CHANCE!
Rene:
But *for what or who*, remains the question.
And Dasein is only the name, the realm of the question.
Jud:
Dasein is NOT a legitimate *name* - it is a pathetic gerund POSING as a
*pretend-name.*
If individual attempts at instantiating *Being* are impossible - how in the
world will the instantiations of a non-existent *pretend-name* do any better?
Whether *Object Givenness* is a one-man operation or a *mass* Daseinic
global-process - it still cannot instantiate a true version of *Being* - but only
deliver a risible, false, fictitious, fake version. So if you want to
continue to live your life as a lie - that is up to you. If you choose to carry
on with your fruitless ridiculous rodomontade about *Being,* then the choice
is yours, if you prefer to live inauthentically - so be it and God Bless your
soul.
Rene:
The more the onesidedness is carried through, the more urgent becomes
this sphere.
Jud:
World-wide - transcendentalists are ripping themselves to pieces and fouling
the nest they live in - YES - it is urgent now!
Rene:
Not Heidegger leads us to it, science does!
Jud:
Heidegger is a loser - a pathetic pint-sized poser and a philosophical
pervert.
It is the TRANNIES who are doing the trouble-making, can't you SEE that?
The frightening, idiotic, strutting, born-again prick in the Whitehouse - the
Anglo-Catholic turd in number 10 - versus the Middle-Eastern religious
fanatics in the Middle-East.
Rene:
It cannot destroy its origin.
Origin is, as H tells often, not just the push of a billiardball.
Arche means: ground in which what grows was and *remains* grounded.
If science strives to uncouple itself from its feeding ground, it must die.
Jud:
These old obscurantist terms are not worth the paper they are written upon.
Better to speak modern clear English [or Dutch if you like}
Ask yourself Rene. Why does religion and transcendentalism always use and
rely on these old crap expressions rather than writing plain English? Yhey
burnt people alive for translating this obsolete dross into the vernacular?
If you remain under the illusion that there remains a *ground in which what
grows was and remains* grounded* which as has ANY RELEVANCE AT ALL for
*scientists, then you are living in cloud cuckoo-land old sport.
It would be interesting one day for you to exactly define what you mean by
*scientists* anyway? Don't you organise your books scientifically - in ordered
rows in accordance with the laws of librarianship. Don't you use computers,
copying machines, telephones?
Rene:
--But who is really the dying party?
(see, it keeps on coming back)
Jud:
We ARE ALL the dying parties - none (not even Our Lord Heidegger], can
escape eventual death.
rene
"do you still don't see?"
Jud. NO!!!!! ;-)
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 ---