Heidegger

In a message dated 27/05/2008 13:49:10 GMT Standard Time,
_michael at sandwich-de-sign.co.uk_ (mailto:michael@sandwich-de-sign.co.uk) writes: An analogy
(whilst notng the limits of analogies):

Thus Spake Pelvicthruster:
The visible-light microscope is an immensely useful tool in displaying the
very small beings of the world. But when it comes to attempting to display
beings as small as subatomic particles, it fails for two sorts of reasons: the
so-called quantum effect that the photons necessary to ‘illuminate’ the
electrons (say) have enough energy to ‘whack’ them outa-sight (so to speak); also,
and relatedly, light waves have to have the appropriate range of wavelengths
in relation to the ‘objects’ they are meant to illuminate, otherwise such
objects are effectively invisible. So, the microscope has limits as a tool for
displaying the very small, even though it nonetheless has great application in
relation to what it can be used appropriately.

Jud:
Like the dead head-the-ball hagiological hornswoggling Heideggerian hero
cum-prophet of exterminatory doom you worship, the historic focus of your
curious choice of such a years-out-of-date *owld-arse* analogy would make the
white-coated ones piss themselves with laughter.

The implications and semantics of the term *observation* will be addressed
shortly, but first, we may define an entity as a unique, specific and discrete
particular which is perceived, known or inferred to have material extension
and undergo change. I include the reification energy in the classification
material, for what we call energy is in fact energised particulate matter – and
some physicists have recently taken to using the word mattergy
(matter-energy.)

Be-ing is not remotely like that and shows no tracks - no effects and zilch
circumstantial evidence for it being there or not being there other than
{like the fantasy as a fantasy in the unhinged minds of those that imagine such
ontological indifferences.

The observable/unobservable distinction changes over time, and so what the
empirical consequences of a theory are is relative to a particular point in
time. The observable/ unobservable distinction will change over time, because
our theories change over time. Distinguishing the empirical consequences of a
theory requires identifying *those of its logical consequences formulable in
an acceptable observation language.*

Thus we have synchronic but not diachronic empirical equivalence and your
problem appears to be that you are simply out of sensorial sinc.

Amongst other things dictionaries define the verb *observe* as – *to
discover or determine the existence, presence, or fact of something.* NOTE: visual
observation is not essential, though the tracks and *flight paths* of
electrons are a scientific commonplace and have been photographed. Our present
magnification and camera speeds are to slow to capture an image of whatever member
of the lepton family it happens to be. From my own viewpoint data accessed
via our appropriate sensorial. mathematical andnon-optical observational
faculties and fascilities are also acceptable for the purposes of scientific
methodology as mediated by the inherent, cognitive, perceptual powers of the brain.

The Objectifier Objects:
I am saying that something similar is at work with predicative logic when it
is asked to perform with respect to the ‘invisible’ ‘object’ be-ing.

Jud:
Utter crapology. There is absolutely no correlation betwixt the two
examples. Whilst there is copies evidence for the existence of sub-atromic particles
the very screen in front of your eyes confirms that. Remove the electron-gun
that fires the particles ito the phosphoresent coating and the scree becomes
as black as Heideggers heart.

Meta-man:
Of course, given the dominance of such predicatory language styles
especially in the west, an attempt to speak concerning be-ing must needs produce a
great deal of tension and tortuous language can result in the attempt not to
strictly perform predicatively.

Jud:
It is not a question of *dominance* - it is a question of commonsense.
Non-predicative language is a dead-duck - in fact it was never even a duckling to
start with. Normal people only use non-predicative language in the
imperative, but even then there is a covert, unspoken subject. In the expression *Go!*
the covert, (unexpressed because unnecessay) *You* is a sentential
redundancy following antecedal implication.

Michael of the Mountain:
The attempt to (unsuccessfully) predicate or not predicate be-ing can both
lead to attempts instead to literally invoke be-ing (’sound/play it out’)
rather than say something about be-ing (’think it in the perspective of beings’):

Jud:
You can stand on your windy peak and like King Lear on his moor scream into
the teeth of the gale *BE-ING!* as loud as you like.
The covert, redundant subject of predication will be lashed back into your
face just as you would if you were pissing against the wind.

Thus Spake Pelvicthruster:
And yet: whenever a being is, be-ing must sway. But how does be-ing sway?

Jud:
*It* doesnt! Remember the ontological indifference, consider its non-ways
and non-sways and be wise - Only the swaying being swayeth.

The Ghost-buster speaks;
But is a being? From where else does thinking decide

Jud:
*Thinking* does not *decide *anything* Only the thinking thinker thinks.

Metaphysical Medalion Man:
here if not according to the truth of be-ing? Thus be-ing can no longer be
thought of in the perspective of beings; it must be enthought from within
be-ing itself.”

Jud:
And pray (in keeping with the biblical language) inform us as to what kind
of an *itself* must be enthought of *Being’s* ghostly paronyme? What is the
manner of the phantasmal conglutination between the Heideggerian Peter Pan
and his irridescent wings of *Being?* Can the *join* be seen, or are we
awaiting more powerful meta-microscopes to discern the ontological differential
crack within the trannie crackpot?

The Reich’s Runt Grunteth:
“Following a simple shift of essential thinking, the happening of the truth
of be-ing must be transposed from the first beginning into the other, so that
the wholly other song of be-ing sounds in the playing-forth.”

[Slybeggar, Beitrage, pp 5 & 7 {Mad & Balmy translation, 1929}]

Jud:
*The happening of the truth of be-ing* hahahah!

*.,, that the wholly other song of be-ing sounds in the playing-forth.”
hahahaha - what a burk!

BTW hows the comic opera coming on?

regards,

Jud

Posted on Sunday, June 8th, 2008 at 6:04 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback