Heidegger

Joe, from everything I said concerning firstness and secondness and that
concretely one can speak any old thing, etc, did you not catch my
effectively saying that your question is entirely *irrelevant* for me, and
thus it makes no philosophical sense to answer it, especially with your
requested yes or no?

To answer your question in *that* way (yes/no)iis is
me (subject) to philosophically deny my own critique of the strictly
predicational
language and technics that you employ (the beginnings of such critique
{crisis: a turning on a laying out}, however vague to the binary truth-value
mechanisms of your speech/calculus, were outlined in my last post (and in
previous posts) along with an indication of my fork/turn in the path {to
attempt to think the be-ing of predication rather than continue with
attempting predicating be-ing along with predication’s possibilities and
limits, etc, however tempting for you…}). On this I think we should be
most *regardful* if we are to continue to speak philosophically with each
other. You appear to have been literally regardless concerning my points in
the last post (which you have ruthlessly enumerated above) and only seem to
want to pursue, nay prosecute, your enquiries like the prosecutor in a court
of law. You have disregarded my non-yes/no answers as not being within your
allowed responses, but they *are* answers, and perhaps you could consider
them so we can perhaps turn at this fork in the road…?

Jud:
For the philosophical propositional-paraquat-quaffers the reification
*predication* is employed in much the same way as it is used by any other non-cult
member of the human race. Predication is simply the homo-sapienic method of
communicating by making a statement with which one seeks to elicit either
agreement or disagreement (from the addressee.)

Anyone with the patience to unravel the sentential aporia of Michael’s
arguments above can easily discern the same form of statemental, predicational
reasoning and sentential structure and formulation as used by the rest of
communicating humanity.

Now for the reluctantly answering, capriciously disregarding Pennamacoorian
*me* to argue in a predicational manner that he refuses to argue in a
predicational manner, and then to go ahead and affirm a *non-yes/no* answer by way
of a predicational formulation - is quite impressive. Impressive that is if
one is a reluctant resident of the Nazi’s *Animal Farm* and accepts Herr
mad professor Ober-Fuhrer Fantasy-Farmer Heidegger’s Doublethink-Reality
Control imposed upon the *unter-animalia,* whereby the Philosopher of Nazism
provides the occupants of his metaphysical farm with the neuro-syntactical power
to hold two completely contradictory beliefs simultaneously and to accept
both of them - i.e, to rubbish predication and to use predicative formulations
for such an attack on one of humanities’ greatest achievements.

If such curiously handicapped *philosophers* feel so vehemently opposed to
the normal, millennia-old syntactical methods of human discourse (as used by
the incipience) they should cease to employ such rules for forming
admissible sentences and see how they get on without it - or in the words of
Wittgenstein - simply keep schtum.

regards!
Jud

Posted on Sunday, June 8th, 2008 at 6:01 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback