Heidegger

In a message dated 28/10/2007 _artefact at t-online.de_
(mailto:artefact@t-online.de) writes:

Joe:
Did the number 3 disclose itself as a prime number; or, did some ancient
mathematician discover that three was a prime number?

ME:
Again you offer only an either-or choice between a subject discovering or a
being disclosing itself. Why not both or why not a third alternative?

Jud:
Because only a fool would posit such a juvenile suggestion. You have rapidly
established and are now consolidating yourself as the list’s resident
exponent of the PATHETIC FALLACY OR ANTHROPOMORPHIC FALLACY (also known as
personification) where the theoretical concepts are not only considered alive, but
human-like and intelligent enough to be aware of the human gaze and to
intentionally set about *disclosing* itself and God knows what else in your warped
mind? Maybe turning somersaults, or singing the Horst Wessel Lied? Most 9-year
olds dealing in basic English are able to grasp such ontological nonsense or
risk being marked down by the examiner and laughed at by their classmates.

Dr. Fallacia:
To return to your simple example of sensuous perception: the ink-blot
discloses itself, first and foremost, AS SOMETHING,

Jud:
Utter rubbish!

Dr. Fallacia:
AND ALSO the viewer discovers the ink-blot AS SOMETHING (on being presented
with a piece of paper with an ink-blot on it). The category of SOMETHING must
already be understood for the viewer to see the ink-blot AS SOMETHING of
such-and-such a kind.

Jud:
What are you trying to pose as - a primary School teacher? OBVIOUSLY
without being presented with a piece of paper with an ink-blot on it the viewer
could not view it!!!!.

Dr. Fallacia:
Similarly, the ink-blot discloses itself AS SOMETHING only within the open
space of being-here, i. e. the Da in Heidegger’s terminology.

Jud:
The ink blot does not *disclose itself* - it HAS NO * self* capable of
*disclosing* ANYTHING - it is just a residue of dried ink particles. The
concept *open space of being-here* is another infantilism. There is no *open space*
the ink blot bearing paper takes care of that. If the paper with the ink
blot was not in the designated place the location would be occupied with oxygen
gas or some other object.

Dr. Fallacia:
Where does this SOMETHING come from?

Jud:
You sound like the philosopher of Nazism crying out for an understanding of
*is* in *Basic Concepts*
Out of an ink bottle of course, or the reservoir of a fountain pen or some
such receptacle.
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/gesprachmittheidegger.htm_
 http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…)

Dr. Fallacia:
The ink-blot is SOMETHING in itself

Jud:
If it were not *some thing* (a humanly classified object) - it wouldn’t be
there in the first place would it?

Dr. Fallacia:
and the viewer also discovers it AS SOMETHING,

Jud:
If he opens his eyes yes.

Dr. Fallacia:
but SOMETHING pure and simple is interposed between — that is the
ontological difference, i. e. the difference between the being (here, the ink-blot)
and its being (AS SOMETHING), which, in a singular instance, can also be
discovered by a viewer.

Jud:
More purility. There is no such thing *interposed* betwixt the viewer and
the ink-blot other than air. The *ontological difference* can be described as
the condition of your brain as compared to a normal human brain that realises
that *The term ontological difference* is rubbish. You have been yapping about
this *ontological difference* for years and for years I have been
challenging you to prove it. Result… silence… then more yapping about *the
ontological difference.* Why don’t you simply settle for believing that you are
Napoleon like others of your ilk rather than acting as a complete pratt?

The *as something* of the ink blot is a human neurological classificatory
activity which maps categories of human understanding - it has NOTHING AT ALL to
do with the physical actuality of ink blot which is ontologically
independent of any human reaction to it. The structure and order of the various
physical aspects of the ink blot exist noumenologically.

The human observer can investigate, discern and make descriptive
generalisations concerning the ink particles and with the help of a microscope switch
from a *macroscopic view* to a *microscopic view* of the thing in itself, but
he cannot know these “things-in-themselves” (noumena) directly. Rather, he
must infer the extent to which his thinking corresponds with inky
things-in-themselves on the page before him. During all this human activity the ink
particles neither conceal or reveal themselves - they just exist on the page.

In your simple crude mind I suppose they rush around conferring with other
as whether to play ontological hide and seek or pull down their little trousers
and moon to you?

Dr. Fallacia:
The singular instance of discovering an ink-blot, and understanding it i) AS
(the representation of) a bat, ii) AS an ink-blot and iii) AS SOMETHING,
presupposes ontologically that the viewer always already (i. e. a priori)
understands what SOMETHING is.

Jud:
If the *viewer was incapable of such recognising such images he wouldn’t be
a *viewer* of *bat-like* ink blots in the first place would he - he would be
an open-mouthed ignoramus gawping at the page with the black stain. Like
Plato’s prisoners in the cave - not to have previous experience of bat-like forms,
he would not be able to make the cognitive link betwixt the black stain
[*shadow*] on the page [wall] and the actual object type which his brain would
have retained as a previously encountered recognisable representational
template in his neurological network.
(Writing to you is like conversing with a child.)

Dr. Fallacia:
SOMETHING is therefore in between the subject (the viewer) and the object
(the ink-blot).

Jud:
It is just air - same sort of stuff that you have between your ears.

Dr. Fallacia:
The category of SOMETHING is a subject-object, in between. The alternative
of either-or overlooks what is always already ontologically presupposed i. e. a
priori present.

Jud:
The humanly instantiated concept of what type of object an object is an
activity of THE HUMAN BRAIN. The *idea* does not exit via the ear hole and
position itself between the ink -blot and the viewer’s retina. Don’t you REALISE
what UTTER RUBBISH you are mouthing?

Dr. Fallacia:
So here we are phenomenologically redicovering Plato’s _idea_,

Jud:
Why not cut the usual barrage of blather of… *Look at me - how clever I
am, dredging up there definitional detritus of dead ideas.*
Nobody is at least impressed by it any longer. You have undermined any
respect that people once may have had for you by your ontological stupidities,
which are far more critical for your image than the regurgitation of passe
Greekisms.

One cannot *phenomenologically rediscover* an *idea.* Ideation is an modal
activity of your own brain. If you have forgotten about your silly *forms* and
wish to *rediscover* Plato’s *idea, *Aristotle’s _kataegoriai_ or Hegel’s
“Idee,” then you can revisit the text and be reminded of the existential
modality of the ideating Plato, Aristotle and Hegel whilst they were recording
their neurological states at the time they wrote.

It is not their *ideas* you will be confronting and reconsidering, but
their written account of how their brains were working when they committed a
description of the way the thought about the world as they wrote.

*Ideas, thoughts, concepts etc., do not exist - only the philosophical
ideator, the thinking thinker and the conceptualising ruminator exist.

Dr. Fallacia:
– viz. the subject-object in between. In the present elementary example,
the subject-object the category of SOMETHING. The category of SOMETHING is
always already discovered (understood) and always already disclosed as one
category in the ontological structure of world.

Jud:
RUBBISH! Different humans catergorise using different categorial frameworks
and guidelines. There is no *overarching* ontological structure of world
composed of archived *forms* reificationally referenceable via *Plato’s Patented
Parametrical Interface* There is a crude, culturally orientated, socially
constructed, rule of thumb, opinionated, disparate, subjective, personalised
plethora of human subjective judgements taking place within the brain each
modified by individual bias. Yes? No? Don’t know? Go and ask a trannie suicide
bomber.

Dr. Fallacia:
The categories are the PREDICAMENTA (Latin for _kataegoriai_) through which
the ink-blot shows itself AS a being.

Jud:
It is the human viewer who does this discriminating and entiative
compartmentalising you dilly - not the bloody ink-blot. In the bowels of Christ man -
get back to school!

Dr. Fallacia:
and these predicaments can also be PREDICATED of the being in a _logos_, a
propositio. What is predicated of the being, however, is derivative of its
predicaments, and not the originary phenomenon.

Jud:
Are you on drugs -you certainly give that impression?

Regards,

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

“In nuclear war all men are cremated equal.”
Dexter Gordon

Posted on Sunday, October 28th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback