Heidegger

In a message dated 29/09/2007 16:22:09 GMT Standard Time, GEVANS613 writes:

A BONFIRE OF THE INANITIES. 01

Aethelred the Ever-Circling Scheisenhawk, fluttered down from his roost in
Plato’s Grande Emporium of Forms in the sky recently and relaxed his
sphincter muscles just enough to let this sauerkraut impregnated dollop of
*ready-mades* onto the list from a great height:

*Etwas Rätselhaftes, daß etwas ist als das, was es zugleich nicht ist.*
Martin Heidegger _Platon: Sophistes_ GA19:580

*Somewhat perplexing that something is as that which, at the same time, it
is not.* Martin Heidegger _Platon: Sophistes_

Jud:
This WOULD be perplexing to the daseinic dunderhead, who thinks that what
one imagines is automatically *thought into existence.* Just because one
conceptualises *a big blue jar full of the pig meconium called sauerkraut* does not
mean that when one returns home, there it is auf dem Küchentisch, AND
[furthermore] that [somewhere else] there is a DIFFERENT [other] jar (perhaps
resting on the toilet seat?) marked: *ECHTER TO MAE ON DEUTSCHEM SAUERKRAUT..* EIN
NICHT PRODUKT VON PLATO NICHT INDUSTRIEN GMBH. Prepared and bottled by
Aethelred Non-Industrial Heteronische Non-Products (Non-Leasing) Non-GmbH.

Aethelred the Ontologically Unsteady:
The Heraclitus connection is rather vague and tenuous in this context. The
page no. (p. 580) indicates that it’s late in the day. Plato’s Stranger is
closing in on the sophist, who has put up all sorts of stratagems and tricky
manoeuvres to avoid capture. The sophist’s last supporters are Parmenides and
Antisthenes who enable him to claim that his way of speaking, his _logos,
cannot possibly be false.

What I quoted from Heidegger is a formulation of Plato’s task: to show that
a false _logos_ is indeed possible.

Jud:
The whole idea of a *Logos* is a load of old metaphysical garbage. Speaking
does not exist - only speakers who come and go as the ages roll by. The logos
of the Catholic church was once *Burn all heretics to death* - the logos of
Athens was *Enslave people whilst you sit back and write stupid stories about
children enchained and clamped for years in a dark cave and then come to
ridiculous crackpot conclusions upon their reactions on being freed*

If the released prisoner had had any sense he would have picked up a sharp
stick and driven it through Plato’s fat belly. In that case then, falsches
Wort oder falsche Logos is also a characteristic of your own language and
everybody else’s, including mine and all the poor Christian and Jewish con-victims
who for centuries have dutifully believed the falsches Wort oder falsche
Logos of sundry prophets, mountaintop seers and priests from the year dot that
there was only ONE logos – the truthful Christian one. Well done Heidegger as
Plato’s puppet and deconstructor of Christianity. No doubt the great debauchee
of teenagers wrote this in the interstices between his flirtations with
Catholicism and Lutheranism? No? Well, we’ll try the space between his
Lutheranism and Nazism? No again? Ooops! Well, sorry Aethelred – we’ve run out of
in-between-beliefs-slots, for after that he remained a convinced [factory farms]
Nazi until his dying day.

Aethldread the Just About Undeady:
Before that, he had disposed of the sophist’s line of defence that
non-being, _to mae on_, is impossible because, according to Parmenides, there is only
being, and non-being _is_ not at all. Parmenides therefore warns against the
path of non-being, which should be avoided altogether. The sophist uses
Parmenides’ ontology to bolster his claim that it is impossible for him, the
sophist, to say what is not/(does not exist).

Jud:
It was the liar and con-man Plato made up a spurious relationship betwixt
Parmenides and Xenophanes for his own nefarious purposes, where there is not
one shred of evidence that any such thing existed. No ancient source was able
to establish the slightest personal connection between Parmenides and
Xenophanes.

*Apparently, the latter, a peripatetic poet-philosopher, wrote an ode in
homage to the founders of Elea, but this does not imply his physical presence in
the city, especially as the Phocians were almost neighbors of Colophon,
Xenophanes’ city, where he may well have written the ode in question. Moreover,
no evidence exists for the presence of Xenophanes in Elea. In an allusive,
indirect way. The relationship is a doctrinal one. In a passage in the Sophist,
Plato wants to refute the philosophers who approach “being” in a quantitative
way, whether they are monists or pluralists. When he comes to the monists,
Plato, who finds this conception explicitly in Melissus of Samos (d.
Theaeietus, 180e, 183e), confronts Parmenides in the Sophist as the presumed master
of this philosopher to whom he attributes the same idea, an idea belonging to
the “Eleatics.” And when Plato gives the genealogy of this” group.”
(Cordero p. 10)

Nothing WHATSOEVER in what remains of Parmenides poem supports the sentence
with which Plato sums up the credo of the *Eleatic group*

*All things [ton panton] are considered to be one single thing [henos ontos
(Sophist 242d).

The Greeks had no word for *things.* To assert that there are things would
be a tautology. The Greeks referred to certain types of objects, for example,
utensils, khremaia; productions or matters, pragmaia; but not to *things* in
general. To get the same (English type) meaning that the word *things* has, a
Greek uses the present participle of the verb *to be* ta onta (as a plural
noun), that is, literally, *beings,* *that which is* or *that which is being*
(in the plural), *the [things] that are, or like I sometimes say *That which
exists.* Obviously the tiny but perfectly formed squirt Heidegger was too
busy reading Mein Kampf and did look at what the expert E. Benveniste wrote:

*The linguistic structure of Greek created the predisposition for the notion
‘to be’ to have a philosophical vocation.*

Parmenides was referring to everything AS IF IT WERE ONE SINGLE HOLON
COMPOSED OF SMALLER HOLONS, rather like we moderns say *existence* (also a word the
Greeks did not have) or *my life* or *our schooldays* etc., meaning the
totality of what exists or existed. One can gaze upwards at a starry sky at night
and mentally toggle what you see as *millions of individual stars and
galaxies* or pull back your mental focus and see the lot as a holon which can be
labeled *The Milky Way.*

Of course Plato was so thick and so are you to understand such neurological
sensorial stratagems. The Platonic lie/misrepresentation of Parmenides’
belief that *the One* [the one-being] represented a huge ball of undifferentiated
material [being] is utter crap – It is not even rhetorical or clever – it is
just a plain outright scurrilous lie and a defamation of a philosopher who
could have driven rings around The Attila the Hun of Philosophy Plato. Plato’s
obfuscation and lies were latter mirrored in the manner of the craven lying
Nazi who later licked the reified memory of Plato’s well reamed lying botty.

The only unity In Parmenides’ *oneness* is linguistic [as described above] ;
the plural is replaced by the singular in the sense of a universal - a
linguistic device which though technically describes a non-existent is a useful
conceptual instantiation for the purposes of the economic description of massed
individuates [compare a cloud or a crowd] It is just like *life* is often
considered as a *one,* although it manifests itself individually and
differently on a one to one basis. Parmenides rightly recognised the originality of the
concept that that which the cosmos contained can also be described as a ONE
(a holon,) or as a multiplicity of individuals, just as the individual
spectators at a football match can be described as the *crowd* or controlled at the
exit turnstiles and name-tagged separately and individually. Parmenides poem
is full of individuals, the horses, the chariot, the axles, the hubs, the
sparks, the wheels, pins, rivets, the Daughters of the Sun maidens, the youth,
the goddess, hands, veils heads, the earth, the sun, the moon, the common
ether, high Olympus etc, etc. Any dumbcluck who maintains that this roll-call of
objects represents the belief of a man who thinks *to on* is one great lump
of matter is a blithering idiot, who is not fit to go near anything even
vaguely philosophical - his place is sweeping the gutter or cleaning out the
Academy toilets.

Cordero writes:
*In the Sophist, Plato is interested in overcoming a conception of being
that, according to him, led philosophy down a blind alley. An absolute
conception of being does not enable crucial problems to be resolved, such as the
justification of predication, false speech, images. Philosophers contemporary with
Plato who were considered to be Parmenides’ heirs are the causes of this
situation, especially Melissus and Antisthenes. Parmenides is innocent, but
Plato, who is not a historian of philosophy but a philosopher, battles against a
system of ideas as this system had come down to him. And the* one-being,*
which prevents any justification of multiplicity, the sensitive universe, or
change, is the main enemy.
(Nestor-Luis Cordero 2004 p. 177) By Being, It Is. The Thesis of Parmenides..
Parmenides Publishing. 2004.

Aethelred the Ontologically Unreliable:
aka *Brain of the Reificational Reiperbahn.* (speaking like a djinn from the
bottom of an empty ouso bottle): But through his famous dialectic of the
_genae_ (genuses, stems) _on, kinaesis, stasis, t’auton, heteron_, Plato shows
via the idea of _heteron_, i. e. of the other and otherness, that the _mae on_
is/exists.

Jud:
He does not SHOW it at all – he just demonstrates the same sort of idiocy he
showed us in the *Comedy of the Cave.* Where is his PROOF that the heteron
exists.

Where are all these heterons stashed? Close by to your perch?
What’s that you say?

*In Plato’s cave.*

Where exactly in the cave?

*The prisoner’s stack them up and sit on them as improvised seats.*

You mean the prisoners sit on something which is *nothing?*

*Errrrrr… mmm…. Yeh…esss?*

*Isn’t it time for your cup of cocoa and your pills.

*Snore…….* Oh. He must have already taken them.

The Kraken Wakes:
*Otherness as a FACET OF BEING allows the one being to be different from the
other. *

Jud:
Oh. Then be good enough to tell us how exactly this personification of
*being* controls this allowance? And who mentioned that One being exists in a
monistic totalised sense in the first place?
(Pssst! Hint M–L–S–U–) Parmenides didn’t – he meant something quite
different.

Aethelred:
That is, the negation of the one being does not lead to nothing,

Jud:
Parmenides does NOT MEAN total existence when he uses the term *to onto* –
any fool can work that out by reading the poem with a pair of spectacles on.
He refers to *that which exists* – although he lacked the word *exists* with
which to express it, and had to make do with *That which is* and (like God on
the mountaintop and Popeye on film) left it to us, Moses and the readership
to insert the individual existential predicates.

Aethelred:
(That is, the negation of the one being does not lead to nothing…) e. no
being at all, but to the other. The other as opposite is the _mae on_ of the
one.

Jud:
The *other* is NOT the *other* of the one – the one is not the other of
anything – there is no other – even of an *identical* twin – for everything in
the cosmos is unique – just the lack of one single atom or even a molecule
renders an object *un-otherable* in Plato’s crazed sense.

Aethelred:
This is one of Plato’s most important discoveries Jud: This is an example of
Plato’s most stupid of all stupidities

Aethelred:
– how otherness enables a non-being to _be_ in a certain way, namely, as
the opposite (_antithesis_) of something else (e. g. the ugly as the non-being
of the beautiful).

Jud:
How can a Hottentot woman’s rear end be beautiful to one man and ugly to
another? According to the idiot Plato [who preferred little boys’ rear ends] –
to a Hottentot man the holeron of an beautiful Hottentot woman’s shelf-like
rear end has a *to mae on* which is ugly – an antithesis which presumably
corresponds to the European man’s ugly version of the said female hunter-gatherer’
s rear end? So if the ugly rear end is placed *rear end about face,* it
becomes the beautiful rear end which is actually the one in the same
ugly/beautiful rear end and the same load of old bollocks applies? This conflicts with
the absolute character of that which exists. As Parmenides says, referring to
the fact of being in 8.1 in *pámpan pelénai khreon esti* – *it is necessary to
exist wholly* – not partly for one man and partly for another nor in two
diametrically opposed properties existing contemporaneously within one object.

The Natterer of Nothing:
But Plato has to go further, because the sophist can object, *OK, a
non-being is possible, but you still haven’t shown that the _logos_ can be connected
with a non-being*. That is, the sophist now challenges the Stranger/Plato to
demonstrate that a false _logos_ is at all possible. This goes against
Antisthenes’ doctrine that says the _logos_ can only be linked with a being,
identifying the being as the same, _t’auton_, and not with _to heteron_. Plato
therefore sets out to analyze the _logos_ to show how otherness and therefore
falsehood is possible within it.

The crucial clue to the solution is that every _logos_ is a _logos ti peri
tinos_ — every speaking is a saying something about something, i. e. every
_logos_ uncovers a being _as_ something.

Jud:
*Speaking* in Plato’s case simply *uncovers* his stupidity. He should have
kept his cake-hole closed and concentrated on what he knows best – silly
stories about sensory starved kids chained up for years with their heads in
clamps. Sounds like a priest’s paradise?

The Concatenator of Crap:
This so-called triviality is the key to solving one of the most perplexing
problems, because, as Plato goes on to demonstrate, the _as_ contains the
possibility of both truth and falsity, of same and other.

Jud:
It is only a *problem* for those that have *nothing* better to do than to
see *nothing* as a problem. *The word *as* used in such sentences as: *Bill
serves as a sailor aboard the Titanic’ is simply an alternative way of
describing an existential modality of Bill. One could with equal clarity express
Bill’s existential mode by saying: *Bill is a sailor serving aboard the Titanic.*

If it was a lie then obviously both *is* and *as* fulfils the same role in
the linguistic representation of a lie. What on earth is *PERPLEXING* about
that? YOU NEED TO GO BACK TO PRIMARY SCHOOL!!!

Stupidity’s Spin-Doctor:
It’s important to realize that in Plato’s dialectic in The Sophist, it is
the discovery of _heteron_ as a sighting (_idea_) of the _mae on_ that is
crucial.

Jud:
The critical urgency of *nothing* is only crucial for those who have
*nothing* between the ears.
The Sturm Bahn Banshee of Banality:
The further explication of the _logos_ as ’saying something about
something’,

Jud:
If speaking didn’t say something about something it wouldn’t be speaking -
It would be more like your *Speaking in tonges* [of the forked variety.]

Bladder-Blatherer:
….of predicating something _as_ such-and-such is a corollary of this
discovery.

Jud: Discovery?
If a predicate didn’t predicate something about something AS something - it
wouldn’t be a predicate.

Oh! God give me strength!

End of Part One

Posted on Saturday, September 29th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback