Heidegger

In a message dated 27/05/2008 18:22:38 GMT Standard Time,
_michael at sandwich-de-sign.co.uk_ (mailto:michael@sandwich-de-sign.co.uk) writes: Thus spake Jud:

Jud:
Be-ing is not remotely like that (the gods or *Being*) and shows no tracks
- no effects

MichaelP: It does: imprecisely, beings.

Jud:
So you are claiming that *beings * are *the tracks* of *Being* How then
does *Being* of John or Mary instantiate such beings of which it is itself the
*Being*
Are you claiming that the *Being* of John or Mary exists without the
*beings* John or Mary of which it is the *Being* antecedally in order to be able to
create them as beings? This would make sense as I believe that for Heidegger
*Being* is merely a God substitute.

Jud: [earlier]
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.

MichaelP:
As has been said a billion times: be-ing is not (a being, and thus not
evidenced by another being); and, the ontological difference is infinitely
singular (not differences or indifferences: rather, difference). However “unhinged”
you might imagine others to be, you, clearly after 12 years or so evidencing
on the list, can/do not read.

Jud:
I am well aware that Heidegger and the cult view is that *being* is not an
entity - it doesn’t even take 12 minutes never mind twelve years to latch on to
such babyish stories as that. The fact remains that if *Being* is
representative of the *ontological difference* and you employ the copula *is* in
connection with *Being, * and in speaking of *Being* the *ontological difference
construct predicative attributes such as: ( be-ing is not (a being, and thus
not evidenced by another being); you are in fact attributing predicational
information to a non-existent nothing.

Heidegger being a cunning peasant is far more careful and always takes pains
to refer to *Being* as: *the problem of *Being* or the question of *Being* -
perhaps you should take a leaf out of the Meister’s * Bumper Fun-Book of
Metaphysical Mischief* and do the same?

Thus your use of *is* means that the subject *Being* and *the ontological
difference* is being characterised as:

1) Having the quality of being or not being *Being* (is/ as the copula,
used with an adjectival phrase [infinitely singular] )
2) Having an existence or predicated as not having an existence, or of not
being extant.
3) Being different or unequivalent to something.

Surely you should never couple the *term *Being* with the copula and
certainly steer well clear of adjectival description whether positive or negative?

If as you have just confessed to Joe it is inappropriate to attempt to
predicate be-ing and claim that *Being* (*… is, if you like, no-thing-ness,
non-being, nothing in that sense* why in God’s name have you done EXACTLY that in
writing:

/be-ing/ {Subject] /is not/ [neg. copula] /a being, and thus not evidenced
by another being/ [predicate]

If as you have often pointed out *Being* does not exist, how can you then
predicate something of it even if such predication claims that:
* be-ing is not (a being, and thus not evidenced by another being.* ?

Do you not see such behaviour as inadmissible for a philosopher — to deny
something in one breath and institute such a thing in the next?

Michael:

The analogy, like all analogies, was *merely* an analogy, and so (as I said)
only appropriate within limits. The point was that all tools (including
microscopes and predicative language styles and analogies) have limits, that’s
all. Remember also that tracks of entities (or whatever you choose to call them)
are not the entities themselves, thus showing that one can see the tracks of
things is only (meaning: conventionally) highly theoretically
(essentially, speculatively) related to the “existence” of such entities
themselves; or rather, the existence of such entities is *precisely and nothing
else other than their effects* (tracks, traces, signs, symptoms, etc), and
that such effects are nothing but observable and observed changes in the e
xperimental environs set up to observe exactly such effects or their absence… In
scientific experiments and observations, the situations to observe and
discover whatever are always a set-up (of environmental apparatuses designed to
precisely only ’see’ what they are designed to ’see’).

Show me an electron itself, *not* the representation (picture, photo) of a
trace or track of a (supposed) electron! If electrons exist in your sense
(through their effects in/on their environs in some determinate manner, e. g..,
visibly photographical tracks in a cloud chamber photograph) then so does
society (in the thinking of sociology) and gods (in the thinking of some
theologies).

Jud:
When the apparatus is available to see DNA and electrons and other tiny
entities you would still not see the actual entity eyeball to object and never be
able to bare eye-ball them. You would be seeing an enhanced magnified version
of the entity. They are too small to be seen with the naked eye, and like
some greatly larger mites that can only be seen by most older people looking
through the lenses of spectacles, you would have to wear your specs even to
peer through the microscope. As a matter of interest my own position as an
inference-to-the-best-explanation realist, is that all theories (scientific or
otherwise) should only ever be held pro tempore. Therefore It is necessary and
desirable to only provisionally accept that visually unobservable theoretical
entities such as electrons, exist - but that is NOT to say that in time when
the entity we now refer to as an electron is finally observed and is
characterised as something quite different to the modern theory about it based upon
deduction and inductive observation of its effects, that I currently deny that
there is no entity at all making the tracks.

Would you agree or not agree that the photographic observation of the cloud
chamber tracks of particles [electrons] does at least show that there is
*something* whizzing around at high speed? Would you agree or not agree that if
in winter you saw footprints in the snow in your garden, that logically you
would deduce or conclude by logical reasoning that something had made those
impressions, even if they were not actually made by a human wearing shoes but by
some other entity? The greatest advances of humankind have been made
precisely by employing inductive and deductive forms of reasoning. Why have you
stubbornly set your face against such human abilities? Is it part of the cult’s
teachings or were you drawn to the cult because it appears to encourage such
anti-scientific attitudes.

Have you observed the tracks of gods in the clouds above - those little
wisps as they skip around doing the Gay Gordons? They are said to use the clouds
them as fluffyspace-scooters for picking up their shopping from Plato’s
great emporium of cut-price forms in the sky.

regards

Jud.

Posted on Sunday, June 8th, 2008 at 6:05 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback