Heidegger

In a message dated 30/12/2007 13:42:09 GMT Standard Time,
_artefact at t-online.de_ (mailto:artefact@t-online.de) writes:

Dr. Fallacia:

‘The question concerning being per se’ arises immediately once one notices
that, as soon as one has opened one’s mouth and said anything at all
(such as your Axiom 0), or as soon as one thinks anything at all, one has
already necessarily invoked being through one or other of the conjugations of
the verb ‘to be’. There is no choice about it.

Jud:
My dictionary’s definition of *invoke* Summon into action or bring into
existence, often as if by magic. Tell us please how does uttering the word *be*
make *nothingness* actionable? Which Heideggerian magic spell brings
*nothingness* into *existence?*

Joe:
at one point you seemed to understand this point: that which is does not
speak its own name. that which is did not tell you ‘that which is is Being’..

Dr. Fallacia:
Nor did I ever claim that, for it is an utterly stupid statement. Being IS
not a being — it is nothingness, and cannot be included among ‘that which is’.
But to see that, one must first pose the question concerning being per se.

Jud:
Hahahah - you dummy! So *when the Heideggerian poser poses *The question
concerning *Being* how does he know (what is the provenance or proofs) that
there is such a thing as *Being* of which any enquiry can be made?

1. Because some Greek who wiped his ass on leaves claimed such a thing was
interrogatively possible?
2. Because some pervert Medieval priest claimed you could question and
invoke nothingness?
3. Because some bare-assed Aboriginal didgeridoo player claimed the *Being*
of his grandfather resided in an empty coco cola bottle?

You make EXACTLY the same mistake as your crazed Nazi male love-object - You
fallaciously pretend the address the question of *Being* without first
questioning whether there is such a neurologically created fantasy to be
questioned in the first place.

Dr. Fallacia:
Then it becomes possible, with many mediations, to also see that the
question “What am I?” is a stupid, senseless, rigged question. Why? Because “I” can
never be a “what”. In this long debate, however, we have never got past
square one, but are still squabbling over the starting-point or how to read a
dictionary. I can never be somewhat, and yet that is precisely what human beings
pretend to be. Your axiomatic attempt leads along a road of self-deceptive
untruth from the very start. Once the question concerning being is seen to point
to the originary phenomenon of being per se, which is the same as
nothingness per se, one can eventually gain the insight that “I am nothingness” is a
fundamental ontological statement about who I am.

Jud:
Joe’s Axiom O is scientifically admirable if shorn of the

Dr. Fallacia: transcendentalist rubbish which clogs it up with the passé
reificational excrement from Heidegger’s conceptual cloaca.
I continually urge him to kick the Nazi into touch and make his Axiomatic
ideas publishable.

Dr. Fallacia:
This all goes back to a fundamental word of Greek thinking, _ousia_,
variously rendered as substance, essence, being, beingness.

Jud:
It meant substance to the Pre-Socratics until Philosophy’s Pervert Plato
got his grimy hands on the word.
Dictionary: *The real physical matter of which a person or thing consists*.
The Greeks also used it in the sense of *property* which one owned.

Dr. Fallacia:
In vernacular Greek, it means simply ‘estate’ or ‘goods and chattles’.
_Ousia_ is the stuff one owns and uses, readily available for use, close at hand,
one’s house and home.

Jud:
So what gives the *later leaf-wipers* the right to distort its meaning to
bolster a perverted metaphysics?

Dr Fallacia: Despite men pretending for millennia to (strive to) be ‘men of
substance’ (meaning usually being rich, having lots of ’stuff’), we are in
truth men of nothingness too scared to look in the mirror. For WHO we are is
only ever a reflection from the world and NEVER anything substantial, despite
all the pretence we strive to make of it.

Jud:
Your *Old Mother Meg Metaphysical Midrash have nothing at all to do with
the question in hand.

Dr. Fallacia:
Your entire approach is within the Cartesian cast of thinking, which
Descartes cast as a fundamentum inconscussum for certain truth. The cogito ergo sum
was to serve, and has served, as the foundation of certain knowledge for a
will to power through which the ego can BE ego, or I am I — the inconcussible,
unshakeable subject of all that is. Thus, through certitiude, human being
itself was to become substantial in itself, the underlying subject, and no
longer the ob-ject of a supreme being (Our Maker) — i. e. a knowing subject
standing firmly within its self-certitude. Being=nothingness has to be kept
absolutely in oblivion for such a casting of world, for otherwise you and I would
have to admit that you are and I am the concussible foundation who dissolves
into nothingness and only cast ourselves freely out of nothingness. Therefore
you are wise not even to admit the “absolute” signification of the verb ‘to
be’ in the OED, as I have pointed out to you, for who knows where that would
lead?? Into nihilism!!

Jud:
Bollocks! It would simply inform you and your weirdo trannies maniacs that
there is no *nothingness* and no psychopath God who wishes you to fly a plane
full of screaming passengers into a building full of screaming
office-workers. Or eliminate the Jewish race. Why don’t you join the Heideggerian
Volunteer Brigade of the Taliban where you belong. I’ll pay for your flight to Kabul.

Joe:
that which is did not tell Jud ‘that which is is Existence’.

that which is did not tell Joe ‘that which is is Reality’.

those were choices we made.

you chose to make ‘Being’ the name for that which is; and, you are now able
to see (and, perhaps, even understand) what you call the ontological
difference — the Being of beings.

Dr. Fallacia:
I never “chose to make ‘Being’ the name for that which is”, for that would
be stupid nonsense.

Joe: what is supposed to happen to Jud and me? having chosen alternate root
predicates (in your jargon, having brought alternate questions into view), are
we supposed to be unable to perceive the ontological difference or not? are
we supposed to be able to see analogous differences? is Jud supposed to be
seeing the ‘existential difference’ as to the Existence of existents? am I
supposed to be seeing the ‘reality difference’ as to the Reality of realities?

Dr. Fallacia:
: That would be some little advance on both yours and Judhead’s positions,
but I am not holding my breath to see whether either of you could ever make
anything of these questions (”the Existence of existents”, “the Reality of
realities”) for you both have fixed positions. In opening a difference between
reality and the real, an in-between opens up that gives plenty to think on.

Jud:
You know damn well I reject the existence of existence and the *Being* of
being as infantile.

Dr. Fallacia:
In denying that you have always already employed ‘is’ or ‘am’ as predicate,
and by proceeding to (pretend to) “choose” reality as your asserted
so-called “root predicate”, all you could ever achieve is that you reify or realize
all that is. Neither alternative is tenable. And your so-called “choice” would
mean, if you were genuinely serious about its “root” character, that both
being and existence would be ontologically derivative of reality, which is
pretty stupid (i. e. impossible to maintain, absurd). Your “root” sentences would
be of the kind, “I reify myself.” or “The tree realizes green.” or other
such nonsense like “I know that I am reify myself, but I don’t know what I reify
as.” or “I know that I am realized, but I don’t know what I am realized as.”

Joe:
if the [root predicate] difference can only be seen if you accept ‘Being’
as the name of all that is; and, no analogous differences (the existential
difference and the reality difference) are seen; then, is that a point in favor
of or a point against choosing ‘being’ as the root predicate?

Dr. Fallacia:
But I do not “accept ‘Being’ as the name of all that is”, (which is absurd)
for there is a difference between being and “all that is”, namely, the
ontological difference. According to your very own Axiom 0, the predicate you are
stuck with from the start is “is”. You just refuse to notice it because you
are intent on proceeding along your merry way of classifying realities.

Jud:
Heidegger argues that interrogation of the meaning of *Being* requires a
fundamental ontology whose point of departure is an analysis of *existence.* Are
you claiming that the word being is not correlate to *existence* and cannot
be used in the same sense in order to refer to *all that exists?* Heidegger
uses the word being in that sense, so why the ontological lover’s-tiff?

EVIDENCE: The Nazi also says that “We can conclude only that “Being” is not
something like being.”
(Being and Time Chap. 1 -part. 2)

Heidegger said that “Being” cannot be defined by attributing beings to it”,
so why should beings be defined as being beings?

Good job you weren’t one of his students - he would have reported you to the
Gestapo for contradicting him.

Jud

Personal Website:

_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
 http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…)

“The greatest of all the spirit’s task is to produce a worldview. The
reconstruction of our age can begin only with a reconstruction of its theory of the
universe. There is hardly anything more urgent in its claim on us than this
which seems to be so far off and abstract.”

-From The Philosophy of Civilization by Albert Schweitzer

Posted on Sunday, December 30th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback