Heidegger

In a message dated 10/10/2008 09:18:02 GMT Standard Time,
_jPolanik at nc.rr.com_ (mailto:jPolanik@nc.rr.com) writes:

So Joe, is that not a good starting point that avoids (at least,
momentarily) the post-cartesian problematic of the body as something wholly or partially
identifiable with the human being?

Joe:

the trouble with this answer (’a being’) to the question ‘what am I’ or
‘what is a human’ is that it is not very informative. if anything that is (in any
sense) is a being, saying ‘I am a being’ adds no further information beyond
what ‘I am’ provides.

Jud:
There IS no *further ontological information* beyond what *I am* provides.
Only ontic information, which is freely available by the trolly-load on the
biology, politics, sociology, anthropology, economics, psychology, etc.,
shelves of any library. What there IS NOT *beyond that* are simply the psychotic
ravings of the various “philosophers”, cults and religions of the trannies,
which has no relevance whatsoever to your project.

Joe:
the ‘formula’ adds further information: I am this which brings into itself
the question of being a being, is there an I-3?

Jud:
The question of being a human being has been addressed for millennia and
the resulting answers are freely available by the trolly-load on the biology,
politics, sociology, anthropology, economics, psychology, etc., shelves of any
library.. No such thing exists as: *The Being* of a being, nor the *Being*
of the *Being* of a being (and so ad infinitum.) It is also impossible to
instantiate (represent by an instance) the *Being* of a being, nor the *Being*
of the *Being* of a being* (and so ad infinitum)

I-3 does not exist. What exists is what is authentically represented by
those symbols. If *1* represents the nominatum of *1* (say a frog) then 2 and 3
would be orphanically nominata-less, and hence the ontologically illegitimate
instantiators of something that would be impossible to represent by an
instance.

Joe:
I recognize this formula (however formulated) as a definition of a mode of
being that is distinctively human because I recognize that it accurately
describes this I — presupposing that I am an experiencer of reflective
self-awareness

Jud:
The IS NO *mode* of *BEING* - for the *Being* of beings, ( 2-3 are spurious)
there are only modes (existential modes - big small, old, young, happy,
unhappy etc) of a being or beings (objects, matergy, physical entities.)

To claim that unsensed, invisible beings exist requires PROOF before such
rubbish is included into your *formulation.*

Joe:
consequently, we’re on the right track. however, having this formula only
means that I pose a question for I to answer.

you seem to think that the formula “also answers your question of *what* you
are”.

Jud:
A human is a living being. The only reason you are able to pose the silly
question *what sort of being? is because the sand in the bum-crack religious
maniacs who wrote the bible did not consider animals worthy of the term
*being.* (They are deemed *disposable upon the whim of humans) and tacked on the
term *being* to the species name *Human.* The evil Jesuitically brainwashed
Descartes (of *I think therefore I am* notoriety) inspired generations of
scientists after him to dissect live animals without inhibition, since after
all, these God -given living machines are without feeling–or so the
Christian dickhead Descartes believed.

One does not say in answer to the statement:

Zookeeper:
*We call this chimp with the one eye, *Charlie,* so we know who it is and
how to identify him to others when he is mixed up in the cage with the rest of
the chimps.*

Joe:
*Well *Charlie* certainly tells us who it is - but it does not tell us what
he is?

Zookeeper: We KNOW what he is - he is a chimp - haven’t you see a chimp
before? Look at the sign on the cage.
To be precise he is a masked or pale-faced chimpanzee from western Africa;
distantly related to the eastern and central chimpanzees; possibly a distinct
species.

Jud

**************

Posted on Sunday, October 12th, 2008 at 6:03 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback