Heidegger

Raddledaethel:
[aka Doctor Ditherer] I got the Greek wrong in my last e-mail.

Jud:
Well its a different sort of mistake from the catalogue of ontological and
semantic mistakes you have made on this list over the years. Anything for a
change I suppose.[yawn]

Addled Aethel:
Every _logos_ is _logos tinos_, and this _tinos_ is further specified as
_peri hou_ and _hotou_ (263a) which Heidegger interprets (rightly, I think) as
what the _logos_ is about globally and what the _logos_’ subject is. The
_logos_ predicates the subject (_hotou_) AS such-and-such, and in this AS lies the
difference that enables the subject to be predicated AS what it is NOT, i. e
the possibility of falsity.

Jud:
God in heaven – is there no end to this roll-call of the ridiculously
obvious - what every snotty-nosed kid, on every street corner in the world -
ALREADY KNOWS!

Delotisch Dolt:
Heidegger emphasizes the character of the _logos_ as *delotisch*, from Gk.
_daeloun_ ‘to show, exhibit, make manifest, uncover, clarify, explain’.

Jud:
If the Anti-Parmenidean Pantaloon is struggling to say that speaking is the
way one human communicates with another , why doesn’t the dummer Idiot say
so – he doesn’t need to throw in another Greek verb to tell us that –
particularly as Heidegger’s knowledge of Greek is laughed at by the cognoscenti as
pathetic.

‘Enry the Entbergener: This is a term in the earlier Heidegger around
1924/25 for what will later be called ‘entbergen’, ‘disclose’. The _logos_ uncovers
or shows the subject either AS what it is
(truth) OR in a distorted (verstellt) way AS what it is NOT (falsity).

Jud: Big deal! So sometimes people speak the truth and sometimes they lie?
Some uncovering – some bullshit. Mind you, being that Heidegger has been
described [by those who ought to know] as *an inveterate liar* would have known
all about telling porkies pies.

Aethelred
the Unsteady: So both truth and falsity depend upon an uncovering, a
showing. Falsity is certainly a negation of truth, but not an absolute negation that
ends in nothingness; it is a determinate negation, namely, the OPPOSITE
(_antithesis_ 257e) of truth, i. e. truth’s _mae on_.

Jud:
A load of old ballcocks! What’s the opposite of a half-truth or a white lie –
a half *to on* and a half of a *to mea on?*

Question: *What’s the holeron of a hole in the rear end?
Answer: *A totally sealed up crapperon.

The Trivialiser:
All philosophical questioning starts with a self-evident triviality,

Jud:
Well you are certainly well out in front in the triviality stakes – no one
would argue with you there – you ‘ll positively romp home in the Reificational
Handicap Race.

Aethelred Einstein:
and only singular genius is able to discover the abyssal mystery in it.

Jud:
So you are claiming you’re a bloody genius now are you? Pass the sick bag.

The Nouveau Napoleon:
But today more than ever there is a refusal and inability to think
philosophically

Jud:
Keep at it – Put both fingers in your ears – No! Not in the SAME EAR
stupid! Put your head between your legs and strain hard – have plenty of absorbent
paper handy and a mop soaked in detergent for when the cognitive blockage
suddenly clears. When the meconium-mist subsides and you can see again, start
with something simple – at the bottom ( No, not Plato’s bottom silly – you can
kiss that later!] beginners philosophy – Heideggerianism is a good place to
start – If you need guidance, stop any kid on the street who is sagging school
and ask for help.

The King Kong of Komplexity
….and in its stead prevail prejudices, complacency and an air of superiority
that does not allow itself to be troubled by seemingly self-evident
trivialities. The simplest is overlooked.

Jud: How can you overlook the simplest if you are dealing with Heideggerian
juvenilia – you can’t get more self-evidently trivial or childishly elementary
than that.

Aethelred speaking without his False teeth in:
_ta gar taes toon polloon psychaes ommata karterein pros to theion
ophoroonta adynata_ i. e. _taei tou ontos ideai_ (Sophist 254a) *Namely, the eyes of
the multitude’s psyche are unable to persevere in looking at the divine*
(Sophist 254a), i. e. *the idea of beings*, the facets of being that make up the
world’s complexion.

Jud:
Don’t knock the multitude. That’s what Ribbentrop did and he ended up on the
end of a hangman’s noose with purple tongue long enough to strop-sharpen a
open razor with – like Slybegger should have done.

The Dazed Diviner:
Plato’s Socrates (Republic?) also disclosed the dictum that just as the eyes
of those who stare straight (and presumably, perseveringly) into the sun
(icon of the good) are blinded by too much light, so the psyche attempting
to divine the good (be-ing) directly becomes dazed (and fazed) and confused..
Is philosophy divine madness & lunacy of the seer or the utter undivine cool
sobriety of those who wear psychic shades?

Jud:
Buy yourself two black eye-patches and book in at Heidegger’s lunatic asylum
just mention Martin – they will still remember him – it took years to
scrape the scheisen off his cell wall when he was told the allies had arrived.
They may even let you use his cell, but be sure to take a nose-clip?

Aethelred the Unready:
I’m now reading Heidegger’s ‘Parmenides’ and thus thinking of falsity and
truth and their intimate relation with respect to a-letheia.

Jud:
Nobody knew more about THAT relationship than an inveterate liar like
Heidegger – that’s for sure. Oh! But we must remember that Plato was the liar too –
the man who actually proposed that lying should be an accepted feature of
government – lying to the hoi polloi of course. Do you think he acted as a
model for Bush and Blair?

The Daseinic Desmofilos:
In the _Politeia_ (Republic) with its famous parable of the cave in the
VIIth Book, those who escape the fetters of the cave where only the shadows of
images are cast on the wall of the cave and enter the broad daylight above are
at first blinded by the light,

Jud:
Would the sun blind your eyes if some lying trannie nutter had chained you
up in the dark with your neck in a clamp so you couldn’t even see who was
sitting next to you for X amount of years?

The Blind Leading the Blind: …
and it takes much practice and perseverance for them to learn to see things
as they show themselves of themselves and finally to look into the sun without
blinding. The sun in this little parable stands for the _idea tou agathou_,
the *idea of the good* which Heidegger interprets (as Hitler?) in lectures at
the beginning of the 1930s as *das Ermöglichende*, *that which enables*,
namely, the being of beings. Beings can only show themselves _as_ what they are
(If the escape over the barbed wire) in the light of the (Seachlights?) *idea
of the good*, which Heidegger will call the *Lichtung* or *clearing*.
(between the inner and outer fence?) Important for Plato in the _Politeia_is that
those who learn to see in the light of the idea are then compelled to return
to the cave where, again, they are at first blinded by the transition from
light into darkness. They have to accustom themselves to again seeing the
shadows cast on the wall of the cave which the cave’s fettered inhabitants take to
be beings in their truth. Plato describes how these prisoners *estimate and
esteem* (516c) each other according to how well each of them is able to learn
the usual sequence in which the images proceed across the wall and are hence
able to predict what images will come next. This is the interplay of
estimating and esteeming played by those who have never learned to see the sights
(_ideai_) of beings as they truly are.

Jud:
I thought the Gestapo were more important than the Politeia? He was on the
phone to them enough? For such deprived cave-victims driven mad since childhood
by their chains and head-clamps and red-raw buttocks – it would be the WALL
and its changing patterns that would be their reality. The shadows would be a
feature OF THE WALL that they stared at – year in year out – not *much
discussed* shadowy beings featured ON THE WALL.

Underground Jailhouse Rocker:
For Plato, the sophist is one such still blind human being who takes shelter
behind the Parmenidean doctrine of the impossibility of non-being. This
doctrine Plato patiently dismantles.

Jud:
Tell us something we don’t know! More Platonic/Heideggerian porkies. You
must be joking – Plato is a laughing stock in the corridors of shame nowadays.
You are truly living in a dream world Aethedread

Aetheldread:
Our eliminative materialist (ElMatist) is a kind of inverted sophist, but
much less sophisticated than a sophist. Whereas the sophist adduces Parmenides
to claim that he, the sophist, cannot say anything false, because non-being
does not exist at all, the ElMatist claims dogmatically, on the contrary, that
only a very restricted kind of being exists, namely, sensuate, individual
entities (both ‘individuality’ and ‘entities’ being abstractions!).

Jud:
Don’t twist my words! You know well that my position states that whilst
abstractions do not exist, embrained human abstractionists DO EXIST. You’ve
obviously got your braces fastened to your flyhole again.

Aethelcrud:
But the ElMatist ends up in the same boat as the sophist because he ignores
his own ElMatist doctrine and talks endlessly about what he claims does not
exist.

Jud:
I do not hold to a Parmenidean position, for though we share a common belief
[common with the majority of denizens of planet earth ] that *to mae on*
does not exist – I reject the notion that *being* [as a Parmenidean universal]
exists. I only accept individual entities into my ontology. How can a man like
Plato, who publicly confessed he doesn’t understand a word of what his
opponent Parmenides [a man who Plato wasn’t fit to kiss his boots] is talking about
have anything to say by way of criticism that is worth listening to?

I believe that *abstraction* as a conceptualisation of a reification IS
possible to think and speak about – but is incapable of existentialisation just
by thinking about it. If the latter were possible, which you obviously seem to
believe – then why don’t you imagine you were intelligent and then your
present problems of making yourself look totally stupid would be over? You could
imagine yourself to be the King of France, which being already bald, would be
easier for you than the majority of men.

We are dealing with a nutty Plato who publicly confessed in Theatetus that
he didn’t have a clue what Parmenides was talking about:

*As for the great leader himself, Parmenides, venerable and awful, as in
Homeric language he may be called;—him I should be ashamed to approach in a
spirit unworthy of him. I met him when he was an old man, and I was a mere youth,
and he appeared to me to have a glorious depth of mind. And I am afraid that
we may not understand his words, and may be still further from understanding
his meaning*

Jud:
Your claims [or pretensions] to some kind of clear cut knowledge of the
Greeks and the background to The Sophist has just been detonated by what you have
just said above. It puts me in mind of the long line of philosophical stupid
mistakes you have made on this list which so many have found to be
thoroughly entertaining. Your present banana skin is your apparent support for the
claim that Parmenides said that nothing false can be said about to mae on
because non-being does not exist at all.

Melissus was the one that held that oneness – Not Parmenides. Perhaps Plato
wanted to suggest to readers of the Sophist that Elea itself was not the
cradle of this conception when he says that these pernicious ideas arose later
starting from Elea. But it is certain that Melissus does clearly proclaim the
unity of being.

“Melissus is the only Eleatic who promoted the theme of the hen to the level
of critical knowledge, and who offers a rigorous demonstration of this
attribute of the e6n. Melissus distorted Parmenides’ philosophy because he makes
the fact of being a spatial-temporal Being, which, unlike the dynamic force of
that which is being, which is “perfect,” that is, ” finished” – – is
characterized by being infinite (apeiron, i. e., without limits) in “size”
(megethos)! The oneness of being is the consequence of this unlimitedness: “if being
was not one, it would be limited by something else” (Melissus, fro 5). There
can be no doubt that “Melissus could go down in posterity, in the history
books, as the inventor of real monism.”

*If Plato combats this conception of the one-being, why does he not
criticize Melissus directly? For two reasons: (1) Plato tends to trust the
philosophical culture of the reader (especially if the reader has been his pupil in the
Academy) and he knows his reader cannot fail to be aware that in a passage
of his book Melissus had stated that” only one thing exists” (hen monon esti)
(fr. 8.1). So when in the Sophist the criticism of the monists begins, the
protagonist of the dialogue asks the anonymous monist: “Do you say that’ only
one thing exists’ [hen … monon einai (in direct speech, ‘esti’)]?” (244b). No
one can doubt that this is Melissus. (2) It is usual for Plato to blame the
originators of a system for the developments to be found in those who claim
to be heirs of the system, as if the germs of the danger were already to be
found in its origin. This is the case with Heraclitus, who never wrote the
phrase” everything is in flux” (which, moreover, would be contradictory to the
eternal law of the logos), even though the phrase is attributed to the “” (
438-39) and also exaggeratedly ascribed to their founder. Doubtless Plato
believes that Parmenides’ absolute conception of the fact of being was responsible
for the developments of philosophers such as Antisthenes, who stated that all
speech (logos) is true (d. Proclus’ testimony In Crat. 37), which produced
unacceptable secondary consequences for Plato’s system, since if lying,
falsehood, and illusion do not exist, what difference is there between the sophist
and the philosopher? Plato wrote the Sophist in order to answer this
question, and the figure to be eliminated was not Melissus or Antisthenes, but
Parmenides.*
(Cordero. p. 179)

Parrot Face:
The simple-minded core of ElMatism is the following syllogism: Premiss 1:
Abstractions do not exist at all. Premiss 2: X is an abstraction, Conclusion:
Therefore X does not exist at all.

Premiss 1 is a dogmatic assertion which is supposed to attain its truth
status by endless dogmatic reassertion, without ever providing even the least
skerrick of an argument.

Jud: This does not differ one iota from Plato’s claim that an object has an
other. He repeats it endlessly without providing one shred of evidence. I say
only the material object exists and can prove it anytime. Back up your stupid
claim that your *Nothings* exist and board the Stockholm plane with your
evidence.

Premiss 2 is an imbecility for, if abstractions do not exist at all, how
could anything at all BE an abstraction? The premiss is therefore an imbecile
vacuity.

Jud: Abstractions are abstractions in that they are merely an existential
mode of the abstractor. Referring to the looney abstractions of trannies is like
referring to the pink elephants that chronic alcoholics claim exist – you do
it to humour them and draw attention to their pathological condition.

The conclusion is simply a non sequitur, for nothing follows from an
imbecility.

Jud:
An imbecility does not exist – it is a trannie version of a pink elephant –
only imbeciles exist – A person of subnormal intelligence who end up in
mental homes – someone like the former mental clinic inmate Martin Heidegger.

The ElMatist is caught in imbecile self-contradiction, and thus
self-refutation, because, although he asserts endlessly that abstractions do not exist at
all, he wilfully continues to speak anyway (vacuously, in his own terms),
employing all the abstractions whose existence he has supposedly refuted, and
that ostensibly for the sake of comfort, convention and convenience.

Jud:
Of course I refute their existence but accept the existence of the
abstracting abstractors.

The ElMatist is hence merely a conventional flatterer who tries to win
people over by cajoling, sweet talk, silly satire, as the case may be, like
Plato’s Gorgias, a mere power merchant engaged in the power play of whoness..

They don’t call you Sour Kraut Eldred for nothing [another member’s coinage
– not mine)
The strict ElMatist must accept the epithet, ‘imbecile’, which means
‘feeblemindedness’, because, in his own terms, the mind does not exist, so it is
meaningless to him to call him mindless.

Jud:
By what you have written in this your latest scandalous sheet it looks as if
you have been drinking or taking drugs – go easy on the sauerkraut it is a
combination of chemicals difficult to digest in view of the internal
fermentation by the rotten cabbage, otherwise it will not only be the yellow fog that
curls around the chimney pots

Regards,

Jud
Personal Website: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…

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