In a message dated 02/11/2004 07:14:36 GMT Standard Time,
borealis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Jud 01: [previously]
Is Anthony's half the authentic instantiation of an authentic *Being* or is
yours and
Rene's? I side with you and Rene as it happens - but even I will admit
that according to Heidegger's lights that does not swing it into the
category
of the *authentic *Whole of Being.*
John:
Authenticity is a relationship. This word ryhmes with author, or self
unfolding. Auto means self. Therefore the more 'authentic' an act is, the
more personal the relation the actor has with it's: (1) consequences, (2)
it's unfolding, (2), and it's 'reduction'.
By this I mean that if I am a Xtian, then I want the same consequences,
traditionally. The tendency for liers is to 'over-generalize' on the behalf
of the cause, which in the case of Bush is to be 'led' by the people.
However in the case of America, which incidentally is not a place nor a
state, but is assumed to be a 'state of mind'.
It is not Bush which misleads the world, but rather it is the world view
which Bush wishes to represent that misleads the world: superiority via
technlogically lethal means.
The only idea which has any reality is the idea of the whole. When a
political 'expression' represents it's view of reality as the 'whole' of
reality - in contrast to the alternate - then there is a failure to reach
world consensus. Since the other half of America is in distinct
dis-agreement on what constitutes a significant reality-relation, then there
is a failure of ideation - we cannot agree on what is the ideal
'pro-tention' or what is portented.
Jud:
In general I agree with all that you have written below, but I must disagree
with your ontological analysis above.
There seems to be a belief amongst Heideggerians that the modern meaning of
a word is in some way
inferior to, or is unable to confer less meaning than its original meaning,
50 - 100 - 1000 - 2000 - or even more years ago.
In my own lifetime I have seen the meaning of the word *gay* change for
example.
Sure the etymology [original meanings] of words is fascinating, and as it
happens it was one of the things that drew me to linguistics in the first
place, and one of my greatest joys is to read dictionaries for pleasure, but to
attribute or invest NEW coinage into the OLD meanings to words and ignore what
the words mean NOW when used in human discourse is to fool oneself. The
modern meaning of the word *authentic* now means *undisputedly credible* or
*bona fide* or *legitimate.*
Therefore when people refer to Bushes *authenticity* or *legitimacy* or when
I refer to the inauthenticity of a version
of *Being* as transacted via Heidegger's *object givenness, what is being
addressed is whether Bush or *Being* is echt - actual - true or fake - false or
phoney. Obviously in the case of Bush half the population of USA believes
him and this ideas and policies to be authentic, and the other half
believe that he and his policies are false, phoney and not based upon what
he claims them to be based upon, but are motivated by a born-again
fundamentalist desire to knock the shit out of muslims, or to secure Middle Eastern oil,
or to ensure the security of Israel, etc.
John:
America now represents a nation 'in contrast' to that which is disclosed as
an authentic state: (1) a nation which has taken down the Berlin Wall is not
a nation in 'contrast'; rather a nation in consensus (2).
The last time America was a nation with 'contrasting' viewpoints was during
the Vietnam War [IndoChina War]. This episode brought America to her knees,
nearly impoverished it.
Jud:
I agree - but the perceived *Being* which is instantiated by one half of the
nation's *object givenness* is *in contrast* to the *Being* which is in
contrast to the other half's perceived *object givenness.* They BOTH can't be
right can they? So that means that the *Being*instantiated by those that are
wrong regarding their version of the *authentic* is inauthentic. This national
and international differentiation of authenticity via *object givenness*
also extends to Heideggerians themselves, so even the believers have different
beliefs regarding authenticity and the fruits of *object givenness.* Many
members of this list have left purely because the authenticity of their
*object givenness* conflicts with the perceived *object givenness* of others, and
they have presumably popped off elsewhere to join other groups where the
versions of authenticity and *Being* and the subsequent conflict are not so
serious or are more under control. But even SMALL differences in the perception
of individual *object givenness* are enough to render *Being* hopelessly
differentiated and inauthentic. If *Being* is the *Being* of beings then it must
truly represent that *Being* otherwise it is not the *Being* at all but a
hopeless inauthenticity.
Heidegger's solution? Create a universal symbol for mankind - *Dasein,* and
thereby cloak these individual differences of *object givenness* and
different versions of inauthentic *Being* under the guise of a mass, worldwide scope
or general human applicability. Magically the *conflict* between the
perceived authenticities and the *Being* resolved from their own versions of *object
givenness,* of one half of America with the other half of America disappear.
Hey Presto! the ontological disagreements between THIS brand of
Heideggerianism with THAT brand of Heideggerianism disappear under the amorphous
generality of the inauthenticity of Daseinic universalism.
Everything else you have written I agree with.
Cheers,
Jud.
It was a nation involved in contrast during the civil war of 1862-1866, when
A. Lincoln lead the Republicans in a war to unite the American States
against slavery. The human cost was approximately 900,000 lives.
American invaded Canada a total of 5 times. We remain a sovereign nation.
Techumseh, the chief, of three Indian nations, saved Canada.
When the will of the people is divided, there can be no 'conclusion' to a
war. Either you agree wholehearted as a people, or you remain in
disagreement, fundamental disagreement. And that is where the USA is
situated. The nation has passed far beyond the crossroads of agreement on
Iraq. Few other nations are involved in the 'aggression', and even Britain
is not involved in a combatant role [until this weekend in Fallujah].
The tides turned for the US under Bush when the US invaded Iraq about 2
years ago. They have not won the hearts and minds of the Iraqi's. And it
looks like they never will. The US is now in decline, and it will be until
it recognizes that it is not the supreme power or moral authority in the
world.
chao
john
>
> On a minor but non-the-less interesting scale, the fact that you don't
see
> any profundity in my statement, and nothing in the statement
> which refutes Heidegger's analysis, merely confirms the fact that
*Dasein*
> is a load of garbage, for following Heidegger, the *Being* of that which
I
> have just written as instantiated by MY understanding differs from what
I
> have just written as instantiated by YOUR understanding, thereby
confirming that
> the universalised version of *Being* of *Dasein* to be a chimera, for
> individual human beings do not perceived and understand and instantiate
*Being* in
> a standardised, agreed way, and each individual's understanding of
*Being*
> differs. So who's version of Dasein's *Being* is the one that corresponds
to
> reality which is actually the *Being* of beings? The Daseinic device for
the
> uncovering of *Being* is therefore a complete and utter failure which
results
> in the production of a completely spurious version of *Being.*
>
> Caveat and reminder:
> Although I have appropriated the language of the *male menopause of
> metaphysics,* that does not mean that I believe a word of it. I am simply
undermining
> his fantasies from within - rather than from without.
>
> Jud 01
> A full explanandum of the categories or everyday life the arts or the
> sciences would be exhaustively difficult. Remember, that in most of what I
write
> here, I am developing Heideggerian or transcendentalist themes, that is
not to
> say that I believe a word of it.
>
> John:
> Yes. But if we were are to take our time and analyze this in full
honesty,
> then we immediately realize that from ontology, we can begin. There are 3
> modes of being.
>
>
> Jud:
> Please don't change the subject [yet] stick hermeneutically to the
cript -
> I am stating above that the catagorialising of the beings of science, the
> arts, philosophy, geology, biology, vulcanology, sociology, history,
chemistry,
> stamp-collecting, woodcraft, aviation, cosmology, boyfriends, disease,
> meteorology, and the humanly attributed divisions of anything you care to
mention
> in the universe, and the DIFFERENT WAYS that every human being on the
planet,
> [or weekend trippers to the Moon,] perceives, understands and
instantiates
> beings as *categorialised beings* DIFFERS.
>
> So the Heideggerian dream of accessing, via the Daseinic principle, some
> fantasy authentic single-category *Being* in which the inauthentic and
the
> authentic, and the partly authentic, and the *might be authentic,* and
the *may
> not be authentic* *Being* of the milliards of beings which are rightly
or
> wrongly instantiated by the understanding of humanity [the inauthentic
and
> contrived Daseinic *being-there* becomes a metaphysical nightmare, and
the biggest
> deliberate lie in the whole history of philosophy.
>
> John:
> The common way of describing the 3 modes is past, present and future
> [retention, intention, and protention].
> The issue of 'what is' versus 'what is not' can often be demarcated
> precisely by what has passed [the root of the spiritual], what occurs
[phenomenon],
> and what is about to occur [suggesting a vision, horizon]
>
> Jud:
> The cognitive contrivance of the notion of past, present and future is
> abstract method that we employ to introduce temporal order into our
lives.
> We need this sort of concept to ascertain when [at what hour] to be at
the
> station to catch the train, or at what month we may stand in our waders
with
> our guns pointing skywards to massacre the flying ducks as they return
from
> foreign climes. Such abstractions are vital if we are to survive.
> In primitive societies the concept of *time* was different - the rising
and
> setting of the sun, and the leaves turing brown were our *clocks.*
> There is no such thing as *what is not* as wise old Parmenides said.
There
> is only our memory of what was once, and that is a holistic memory of the
> human John as he recalls past events. The is only ONE INSTANT and that
is NOW -
> all else is either memory of what once was, or speculation of what might
be
> when this now is replaced by another.
>
> John:
> Again we can demarcate a further 'reduction' if you will...we can refer
to
> that which is of the 'imagination' and that which is a 'non-imaginative'
> nature, or of 'nature'.
>
> Jud:
> The *reductions* and the *imagining* that you refer to are the actions of
> the human called John's brain NOW.
> The imagined Being* of nature as perceived, understood and instantiated
by
> the being John, is quite different from
> the imagined Being* of nature as perceived, understood and instantiated
by
> the being Jud.
> How does Heidegger know which is the authentic imagined *Being,* and
which
> is the inauthentically imagined *Being,* and therefore which one to admit
into
> the *super-category* of *Being* as instantiated by the adjudicatory
> imagination of *Dasein* as *Dasein* was imagined by Heidegger?
>
> John:
> Philosophy and grammar are different studies. There is not much help to
be
> found in the grammatical [unless we were to discuss Derrida's word
> sortie's], but more to be found in the analysis of what is.
>
> Jud:
> Then why is Heidegger so obsessed with words and their grammatical and
> etymological construction? he must of spent half his waking hours with
his
> grammatical scalpel dissecting words into the constituent parts and
thereby
> extracting [or disinterring] dead meanings?
> Words are the spades and mattocks wherewith we dig up the dead ideas of
dead
> civilisations, words are the chisels and scrapers with which we remove
the
> philosophical verdigris and encrustation of obscurantism with which
Heidegger
> assiduously wrapped his simple-minded notions, which, like numerous
> wrapping-paper on a cheap gift, when exposed and uncovered expose the
ontological
> gimcrackery as base plastic tat.
>
> John:
> Language is a medium, not a messenger.
>
> Jud:
> You are getting confused again John - surely you meant to say *Language
is
> the medium not the MESSAGE?
> A medium is the means or instrumentality for storing or communicating
> information which is exactly the purpose of a messenger
>
>
> John:
> However language can 'open' up worlds of interpretation and description.
>
> Jud:
> That is what it is FOR.
>
> John:
> Heidegger has done this with gusto!
> What about the word gusto? This word is Latin, meaning originally a
breath
> of wind. It means in modern Spanish, happiness, or pleasure, mucho gusto.
> The phenomenon of course is that the word 'wind' is also 'gust' or sudden
> stirring in the wind, or ambient surround, as Heidegger would offer. The
> *similismus* is that the 'turn of phrase' is *like* a gust of wind, a
sudden
> turning in feeling, a will-o-waw.
>
> Jud:
> This is what I mean by pointing out that individual human beings do not
> perceive and understand and instantiate *Being* in a standardised, agreed
way,
> and each individual's understanding of *Being* differs. Therefore *Being*
as an
> authentic *super-category* is a nonsense.
> The more you disagree with me and the more I disagree with you the more
the
> gap between an authentic and an inauthentic *Being* widens and the more
> ridiculous is the concept of an authentic grasp of *Being* possible by an
imagined
> Daseinic imagination.
>
> John:
> As I have told of this before. It happened again, this evening, a brief
> lightening flash, a squall of wet rain and snow, plastering the day with
> movement, before the darkening calm.
>
> The best bit of writing in your message - sheer poetry without the
> ontological pretence/confusion. ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 ---
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 ---