RE: all or nothing at all, part X



-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens
GEVANS613@xxxxxxx
Verzonden: donderdag 4 november 2004 14:14
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: all or nothing at all, part X




In a message dated 04/11/2004 12:17:38 GMT Standard Time,
R.B.M.deBakker@xxxxxx writes:



-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens
GEVANS613@xxxxxxx
Verzonden: donderdag 4 november 2004 3:12
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: all or nothing at all, part X




In a message dated 04/11/2004 01:20:59 GMT Standard Time, janstr@xxxxxxx
writes:

Hi Jud,

in your conversation with Michael you wrote i.a.:

>..... because *something* ALWAYS existed and always will.
>..... the fact that X exists as X.

>..... Objects/forcefields simply exist in the differing ways that they
exist.
>..... an object exists in the way that exists
>..... correspond to the way that an object exists in the way it exists.

>..... An entity [an entitic being] exists in the way that it exists,

I find your descriptions and formulations here have a rather religious
and transcendentalists connotation. They strongly remind me of the
name of the God of Moses: YHWH, "I exist in the way I exist", "I am
that I am", "I shall be who I shall be" [Exodus 3:14].

yours,
Jan

Jud:
Well spotted Jan - there is a remarkable similarity. That is why the
biblical phrase carries so much impact. Because like my formula it is
perfect tautology - given that one accepts that objects exist. It too
is a perfect statement that is necessarily true, given that one accepts
that God exists. Four things militate against the biblical version though.


Rene:
Indeed very well seen. The harder Jud tries to losen himself from ontological
commitment, the harder he is bound to it. And the harder he is bound to it,
the more aggressive he becomes.


Jud:
But I am not bound to any metaphysical or transcendentalist ontological
commitment


But that's precisely what i mean, Jud.


Rene, and the reasons for that freedom from it are given below,
reasons which you have ignored [ not faced up to and addressed.] The two
tautologies are formulaically similar, but the grounds are entirely different. The
object-based grounding of my ontological formula is based upon acknowledged
concrete entities that anybody can access through our five senses, in that we
can: touch, see, hear and taste


But sensing is always also thinking - forget Hume and read Kant and Nietzsche -
so that thoughtlessness implies senselessness. Kant has reduced the objectively
knowable of (for instance) colour, to what can be measured: the intensity.
But a measurement of color is not at all what i see when i see color.
Why do you think are there poets and musicians and painters? Why do you claim
reality only for nihilist science?


taste worldly objects, whereas on the other hand the biblical tautology is
based on FAITH alone, and *faith* has been described by Voltaire as being: *An
effort on behalf of the will to believe in something for which their is no
evidence - for if there WAS evidence - there would be no need for faith.*.
So whilst the two tautologies appear to be structurally synonymous,
foundationally they are completly different.

Anyway there is still a raging controversy amongst Hebraists/Aramaicists
regarding the actual translation of *God's words to Moses on the mount.
This snippet from the New Yorker is only one of many on the subject:

*The ferocity of this tribal God measures the ferocity of tribal existence.
In Exodus 3:14, when Moses asks God his name, the answer in Hebrew, ’Ehyeh-’
Asher-’Ehyeh, has been commonly rendered i am that i am but could be, Alter
reports, simply i am, i am. An impression grew upon me, as I made my way
through these obdurate old texts, that to the ancient Hebrews God was simply a
word for what was: a universe often beautiful and gracious but also implacable
and unfathomable.* _http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/?041101crbo_books_
(http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/?041101crbo_books)


Well, i bet it was a bit more than this 'simply'. It kept them together for
more than 3000 years. Don't you recognize the awful degrading of this
"God is simply...." New York, where they're now, is simply...
Did i read today that Bush said: there are no limits to the greatness
of America? But that's blasphemy and he should be investigated by the
inquisition of his own church.
Apparently, there's no limit to the sleeping disease of the nightland.


Rene:
But that is a very interesting feature of the man('s words).
The more so, because according to Heidegger the tautological character
of language, and the character of 'sameness' itself, is what is to be
accustomed to.

Jud:
*Sameness* is just an abstraction. * Whilst things may be similar, nothing
in the cosmos can be exactly
the same as another object, otherwise it WOULD BE that object. (Another
Heideggerian boob.)


That's Leibniz' indiscernibilitas identicorum. You're standing
on metaphysical soil: the identity of substance.
(warning: the soil is burst)
I am referring to another sort of sameness, which solely consists
in difference, in keeping apart the different, not lumping piling
on the heap of indifference.
Let's not talk of this different sameness, as long as indifference
is not brought home.



Anyway, I have demonstrated above that the two tautologies are not the
*same* or even *similar* foundationally,
because one is based upon actual tangible entitic beings - and the other is
based upon a faith in something for which no evidence obtains.


As you say, cannot evade saying: both are similar in being based upon...
But that's my point.


Rene:
Either, though, everything is the same indifferently,
or this indifference is ITSELF spotted as the last result of a thinking
of Being as the koinon, the common of all that is. That thinking is called
metaphysics or ontology, to which the Exodus passage cited above, has been
of special importance, stimulus. So important, that today's situation is
MARKED by the completion of that way of thinking, a completion that is left
out, and by being left out, only prints itself harder on us.

Jud:
It would appear following from all the controversy amongst biblical
scholars, that not only is *Being* inauthentic
because of the flawed instantiational process of *Object Givenness,* but the
word of *God* is also inauthentic as a result of incorrect translation.

All trans-lation is in-correct, happily! I fear only CORRECT translation,
which makes everything indifferently copy-able. 2+2=4 is in all languages
the same.
Only when there is 'agreement' on this difference, can Jewish religion and
German spirit peacefully co-exist All further talk of tolerance is just
oppressive mendacity.


Rene:
Hoelderlin speaks of the abyss that marks everything. False tones, lying
cannot escape out of the abyss of nihilism. They reverberate and glare
between its icecold walls, which remind Hoelderlin of the shining and
farreaching sounding bites, that no longer shine and sound.

Jud:
Nihilism is the delusion that things (or everything, including the self) do
not exist; a sense that everything is unreal.

But the felt unreality is over-real. People kill others and themselves
because of it. I don't think you want to deny, *circumvent* that reality,
only for the sake of certitude?


This is just about as far as one can get away from materialistic nominalism.
So it's *back to the drawing board* for you I'm afraid Rene.

What is the real without the threat of the unreal? God without the devil?
Celan said: reality is not, reality wants to be won.

eis hygeian,
rene





Cheers,

Jud.

(a) Everyone agrees that objects exist.
(b) A decreasing amount of people in Europe - though an increasing amount
of
people in USA believe that God exists.
(c) There is no *I am* in Aramaic.
(d) The objects to which I refer are actual objects - the spectacle case in

my hand - the mouse in yours.
*God* has no nominatum - the word *God* points to an idea in the human
mind,
rather than to a hard, knock-on-the-wall object.
Like *Being,* *God* is an instantiation of *object giveness* without an
object to negotiate the givenness. God is an ontological bride left at the
ontological altar without a human father to give her away.
In that way there is nothing *religious* or *transcendental about a steel
nail existing in the way that it exists - I could show it to you - drive it
into Bushes skull with the help of Heidegger's ready-to-hand -hammer - but
I
couldn't put my hand up God's trouser-leg and twang the elastic in his
underpants.






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 ---

Partial thread listing: