Re: nietzsche's secret


john writes:

This notion of ground as 'fundamentum' has no phenomenal verity. I asked
too, and thought, if there is a fundamental ground, but there is not, at
least not phenomenally. That would be a contradiction to 'subsistence' and
'persistence' and why?

Well because within what exists, in consciousness, not the simple abstract,
reflective sort, but what supports the existence of consciousness, or in
pure phenomenal 'presence', there can be nothing more primary than what
'subsists' and 'persists, the mere stratum of being there, dasein. This is
why the truth is both simple and real. There are no 'complex' forms of
truth, which rely on other supporting truths which have not be 'tested.'

Kenoth is absolute right.

A white sheet cannot exist in perception without something else there which
is just as real; no inference can be valid without its existence being
there, equally present; Heidegger may have believed that there was a
'fundamentum', but it has no phenomenal reality, rather it is an
'approbrium' of reflection, or a form of inferential wisdom. Inferential
wisdom is not the knowledge of what is there, but rather a product of
disciplined reasoning, sometimes valid and sometimes not. The *problem* with
reason lies in it's 'universality' which merely stated [a term meaning
absolute] is dependent on an 'interpretation' of 'related' phenomenon, which
in most cases is: (1) social, (2) cultural, (3), individualized, et cetera.

This is why in the Meditations, Decartes, states that what exists in
consciousness, in mentation, is what persists and subsists. Niether of that
which persists and subsists is a ground or fundamental 'thing'. Ground or
fundamentum cannot be a thing, rather an 'arrangement', a classification, or
heirarchy. There is no hierarchy in perception or consciousness, because
consciousness is in 'itself' a whole, and cannot be divided.


Hi john,

I take it you are addressing your thoughts and ways of using words. What I find interesting is your notion of persistence and subsistence. Okay I 'understand' it for the simplicity that it is and that it indicates the wholeness of consciousnes but I wonder if one can describe this thinking as completely lacking discipline? Just the act of separating it from a another invalid approach to thinking already involves abstraction or cutting away that as you say gets you finally knowledge of what is really real. There is then labour and discipline although perhaps it can be described as negative. There is a "contradiction" as you say. Something here offers resistance and conflict because it always has a tendency to operate? Okay and if it is inoperative 'what' is supposed to be that which is "in mentation" in Descartes?? Are you or Descartes saying that consciousness is human or is it more than that? Where is the whole "in" which there is mentation and out of which presumably there is 'nothing'??



I'm just curious about what you really think John.

regards,
tympan



chao

jhon

_________________________________________________________________
Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has to offer. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.



--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

Folow-ups
  • Re: nietzsche's secret
    • From: John Foster
  • Replies
    Re: nietzsche's secret, John Foster
    Partial thread listing: