Heidegger

Hi Jud, i have thuoght of you too in the Eifel retanking my geishir keraunos.
I thought: of all, Jud is the closest to something. Namely when he is looking
frenzily for Being - in trees. Suddenly you could feel your*self*, if you would let
it be. Like Razumov, when he hears the wind for the first time. Much much simpler than
the leaf. Ein-fach. (logos)

What do you think of the comparison of heraklitus playing dice in the temple,
and de sade, directing his colleages in the asylum?

i am waiting with the wine, will you be there too?

cheers old horse.
spread the wings.

rene

________________________________

Van: heidegger-bounces at soca.ecu.edu.au namens GEVANS613 at aol.com
Verzonden: zo 30-7-2006 16:03
Aan: heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
Onderwerp: Re: Don Quixote on Suicide

In a message dated 30/07/2006 11:49:54 GMT Standard Time, R.B.M.deBakker at uva.nl writes:

Rene writes:
I better say it to you: if Being is written differently or crossed out, it is Dasein which enters the danger zone.
Once more: Being crossed out means: you are crossed out.

Rene - you lovable old Don Quixote of La Amster,
In your words above you touch upon and reiterate the most notorious misunderstanding in all of human thinking - a imbroglio deliberately *talked up* and reiterated ad nauseam by *the great unquestioner* Heidegger that continues to befoul philosophy to this day.
Whilst the word *life* describes a condition or *state,* of being alive, generally speaking the word means the organic phenomenon that distinguishes living organisms from non-living ones. It refers to causal objects [humans] which manifest the condition of the living, or the state of being alive with the various degrees of animation [change and movement and vivacity] which is characteristic of such causal objects.

*Existence* or *Being* on the other hand has nothing at all to do with real *life* or *inanimacy* but refers to the non-specific [un-modal] FACT of existing. In other words the word could be replaced by the word PRESENCE and still make sense, whereas the word *LIFE* could NOT be replaced by the word presence and still make sense. To be present in the cosmos does not require something to be alive - the headstone on Heidegger’s grave is present in the cosmos - but it is not alive.

A newly-dead body exists and is present in the cosmos, but it is not alive. In other words you are falling into the dreaded logical/illogical trap of attributing an additional *spiritous or mentalistic dualism* to living or dead material by positing an *ontological difference,* and in the case of a living human crediting the FACT that such a human is alive and experiencing the world, as something that *inheres* in or *belongs* to the human being.
I have even come across the phrase: *His Being,* or *His existence,* as if the very FACT of someone being alive can be in some way be *possessed* by him or her as some variety of spirituous asset or property.

The belief of such people afflicted with this curious mental aberration [which is so bizarre there MUST be a gene responsible for it] is that for them an object exists AND IN ADDITION to the fact that it exists they insist upon reifying that FACT into a quasi-object in itself, which they claim is also present in the world and can be discussed, talked about, referred to and phenomenologically evaluated, etc., , etc.

So the population of the world is magically and phenomenologically reduplicated and divided into two different types of populace - the blood and bone type and an accompanying ethereal version. So we have the flesh and blood population of the USA [for example] which now consists of 298,444,215 living, breathing Americans, and the 298,444,215 ungazetteered *Beings* of those Americans. Whilst these Heideggerian abstractions do not receive senior citizen pensions when their corporeal owner reaches 65, they certainly exert a great strain upon the rest of philosophical society which is subjected to the never-ending tall-tales and gripping yarns of these mentalistic wraiths as they bomb Baghdad and march into Poland.

So take two list members - ones perhaps that we all know well. One is in Holland and one is in Texas. Now if they are where they say they are - their *existences* can’t be there too can they? One can only be in one place at one time in Britain, and one cannot be in the same place twice at the same time either - so why should it be any different in any other country?

One consolation - you have lots of lovely wind-mills to tilt at as [long-locks flying in the wind] you ride your bicycle along those breezy canal-banks with the the name *Realist Rocinante* emblazoned in gold-glitter along the fluted and filigreed cross-bar.

regards,

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

winmail.dat

Posted on Sunday, July 30th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback