Heidegger

Dear all,

Marie Mainil here. Let’s all calm down, there is a simple explanation to
what happened. Allen is out of town for a few days, and is having
difficulties with his email account. As such, he used one of my email
accounts to post on the list, which I had no problems with. One of us should
have given this explanation along with the post. It seems to me that
apologies would be well given multi- directionally, after all, all involved
failed a certain level of courtesy in the matter at end, from omitting a
piece of information that would have saved some confusion to distasteful
accusations and lack of openness to possibilities. En passant, at the end of
the day, I am most pleased I let Allen post through my account, I personally
think his post was tasteful and affectionate towards Jud, as always,
entertaining and possibly enlightening to us bystanders.

Best wishes,

*Marie Mainil*

>From: heidegger-request at soca.ecu.edu.au
>Reply-To: heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
>To: heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
>Subject: heidegger Digest, Vol 24, Issue 27
>Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 22:01:48 +0800 (WST)
>
>Send heidegger mailing list submissions to
> heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/mailman/listi…
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body ‘help’ to
> heidegger-request at soca.ecu.edu.au
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> heidegger-owner at soca.ecu.edu.au
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than “Re: Contents of heidegger digest…”
>
>
>Today’s Topics:
>
> 1. Re: drifting. . .into posing as somebody else. (GEVANS613 at aol.com)
> 2. Re: drifting. . .into posing as somebody else. (michaelP)
>
>
>———————————————————————-
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 07:52:18 EST
>From: GEVANS613 at aol.com
>Subject: Re: drifting. . .into posing as somebody else.
>To: heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
>Message-ID:
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”iso-8859-1″
>
>
>
>In a message dated 31/12/2006 08:54:25 GMT Standard Time,
>michael@sandwich-de-sign.co.uk writes:
>
>Jud, in your usual haste to rapidly demonstrate your enormous sophistic
>wit,
>and without here commenting on the vitriolic mash-up you evidence below in
>your ‘response’, you have not noticed that your respondent is one Marie
>Mainil
>and *not Allen* (and not at all in the style of the Allen I know… and
>different email address to boot); equally, another of your recent
>respondents is
>one Les Smith and *not Lee Smith*.
>
>A little less speed and a little more respect perhaps in the new year…
>
>regards
>
>michaelP
>
>
>
>Jud:
>The fault is not mine but the obvious young person [beginning psychologist
>manqué and apparent newbie to computers - judging by how and what he/she
>writes] posing as *Allen* who signed the message as *Allen.*
>
>
>Look again at his or her message. HE or SHE is the one who must apologise
>to
>Allen and me/I.
>
>This is the first time that somebody has posed as somebody else on this
>list. The fact that this craven idiot concealed his or her true identity
>from
>this list and posed as someone else is highly suspicious anyway.
>
>THERE IS NO MENTION OF *MARIE MAINIL* ON THE E-MAIL I RECEIVED!!!! [see
>original e-mail reproduced below] and the name is entirely new to me.
>
>He/she signed as: *ALLEN,* and the poseur has even spelt it right, for it
>is a somewhat unusual spelling of the name here in Britain. The fact that
>it
>had a different e-mail address is irrelevant, people change them and some
>have
>more than one etc. En passant Allen has always misspelled my name as
>*Judd*
>anyway.
>
>It is a shame that due to this young incompetent sap Allen got the sharp
>edge of my tongue, but my comments re: *The book which should never have
>been
>written* (*Being Jewish - Arselicking Heidegger* as I heard it referred
>to in
>my university) and my critique of him as a traitor to his own people is
>nothing new. I am sorry however that this critique had to be reiterated
>at a
>festive time of year.
>
>What I DO expect is an apology to Allen and me from the so-called *Marie
>Mainil* for the disruption he/she has caused by sending an e-mail
>purporting to
>come from another member of the list.
>
>
>
>
>
>I reproduce the original message from this person below and it will be
>seen
>that it purports to come from Allen.
>
>Jud,
>
>Amongst your many services to this list is the opportunities you present
>for
>the
>diagnosis of philosophical pathologies, that is systemic errors you make
>that seriously
>infect any semblance of philosophical sensibility you might have once had,
>the
>possibility of which you might even have been born with–who am I to say.
>
>The most tiresomely repetitious of these pathologies goes all the way back
>to the
>sophists, most notably Gorgias. It manifests itself most generally as the
>fear-of-being-affected, more specifically, as the unwillingness to
>confront
>the proximity
>of rhetoric to philosophy. Now please listen carefully.
>
>The fear-of-being-affected correlates with an obsessive need to be in
>control, most
>specifically through the power of reason. As is true of most obsessions,
>reason itself
>is used to fend off any possibility of overcoming itself. The very idea
>of
>such
>self-overcoming, itself overcomes the sufferer with a potentially lethal
>deficient form
>of rhetoric, which has come to be known in our time as “critique.” This
>deficient
>rhetorical form can be self justifying to a fault, making it impossible
>for
>the sufferer
>even to hear, let alone comprehend any ideas which might expose him to the
>dreaded
>open-ness which he associates with a complete abnegation of the
>independence
>and
>integrity of the self. This integrity and independence he feels an
>overwhelming
>obligation to protect , using the iron-clad capacity of reason to turn
>away anything
>that stands in its path back to itself, often with an ingratiating wit and
>charm which
>endears the sufferer to himself to a degree which sometimes results in
>anti-social
>behaivior, fortunately of a rather benign variety.
>
>Now as to the unwillingness to confront the proximity of rhetoric to
>philosophy. The
>problem here is an inability (congenital or not, I cannot say) to
>recognize,
>let alone
>appreciate the constitutive power of language, a power often associated
>with
>the Greek
>”Poiesis,” whose relationship to truth as the Greeks conceived of it, we
>can
>discuss at a
>later session, should you choose to engage what I have to say with a good
>faith effort
>(words deliberately and carefully chosen) to keep the more extreme
>expressions of your
>obsession in check.
>
>It might be encouraging to recollect the sophistic heights of Gorgias’s
>expression of the
>obsession:
>
>Being does not exist,
>If it did exist, it could not be cognized,
>And even if it could be cognized, it could not be communmicated.
>
>I have known some talented obsessives in my life, but few if any could
>come
>up with such
>an apparently thought-tight “conundrum”
>
>Further realizing how hearing about fellow sufferers, especially
>well-known
>ones, can
>give one so afflicted some hope, I give you the best and the worst of so
>called
>”analytical” philosophers.
>
>Best wishes for this new year and all those that might come, though at
>this
>point, one
>has reason to doubt.
>
>Allen
>
>under control.Quoting GEVANS613 at aol.com:
>
>
>[Hide Quoted Text]
>The rhetorical dimension of language is “of language,” we being only
>partially at cause and not clearly able to understand. What I’m trying to
>say here
>is that in some, or large part we are subject to language and can act only
>through it. I don’t think even Spinoza’s artful attempt to contain
>language
>within a geometric frame outsmarts the determination of language to force
>its
>will upon us.
>
>I think the best we can do under the circumstances is to think language as
>such, language as it wants to be thought, observing our capacity to be
>affected
>even as it is being affected.
>
>Jud:
>Language has no *rhetorical dimension* nor does it have a *will* or the
>capacity to *want* anything. Such things are in keeping with the
>fantasies
>of
>the painted savage cavorting before a baobab tree in an effort to
>influence
>the
>spirit which resides within its gnarled trunk to cast or remove a spell
>from
>some smelly, shit-encrusted fellow anthropophagite.
>
>No sign has any feelings. A traffic-light doesn’t give a flying fig
>whether
>the car drivers that allow it to control them, suddenly decide to ignore
>the
>rules of the road which they themselves have invested in its shiny pole
>and
>flashing circuitry and smash themselves to bits in the sequel of such a
>stupid
>semiotic snub.
>
>To start off the seventh year of the twenty-first century with the
>suggestion that being human entails being concerned with either
>subjectively accepting
>and acting passively in response to the agenda of a personified language,
>or
>attempting to outsmart *the determination* of a personated language to
>force
>*its will* upon us. is utterly bizarre and evokes an image of a hairy,
>unkempt creature with pronounced eyebrow ridges and a jaw which cries
>out
>for the
>attentions of a maxillofacial surgeon and orthognathic surgery, sitting
>before a modern computer in a centrally-heated modern room banging his
>calloused
>hairy hands up and down incomprehensibly on the mud-bespattered keyboard.
>
>It is HUMAN BEINGS who produce, generate, and agree the meaning of the
>signs
>we call *words* and *traffic-lights* and they have no agenda, will or
>determination of their own. We can make such signs effective for
>communication, or
>alter the combinations and with it the effective outcomes as Heidegger
>did,
>with the resultant communicational obfuscation, and the ratcheting-up of
>anti-Semitism and with it the rhetorical road-deaths of the camps.
>
>Tympan has a far better grasp of this rhetorical process, as can be seen
>in
>his passage below, for he rightly identifies the *you* and the *your* and
>the
>*yourself* and the *children, friends or wife and lover* and the *women*
>and
>the *men* and *Deleuze* that rocks and is rocked by the bark of language
>and
>NOT a *willful* *language itself* intent on allowing either intelligent
>communication or semantic bedlam as the whim of the moment takes it.
>
>But the personification of langauge apart…The Season’s Greetings to
>all!
>
>Tympan:
>Well yes this is what the study of rhetoric is all about,– fine feelings
>that we get from polishing this surface so that it becomes more smooth and
>graceful and all that jazz. No matter what, you are selling yourself
>whether it
>is to your children, friends or wife and lover. The tropes are similar
>but
>the
>actual words are different and with the latter I think the body is
>affacted
>in a more erotic fashion. Drowning can be a scary thing or not… listen
>to
>how women discuss and spin the sort of ideas men like Deleuze and us
>express in
>our own way:
>
>
>
>regards,
>
>Jud Evans.
>Personal Website:
>http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm
>
>
>
>Delete | Reply | Reply to All | Forward | Redirect | View Thread |
>Blacklist
>| Whitelist | Message Source | Save as | Print
>Mark as: Unseen Important Not Important Answered Unanswered Draft Not
>Draft
>Move | Copy This message to —- New Folder —- Inbox Drafts drafts
>HEIDEGGER Junk Sent sent-mail Trash Untitled Back to drafts
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>A lot of passions? Collect all your personal info on one central location
>,
>
>for free!  http://get.live.com/live/features
>
>_______________________________________________
>heidegger mailing list
>heidegger@soca.ecu.edu.au
>http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/heidegger
>http://heidegger.an-archos.com/
>
>
>
>
>regards,
>
>Jud Evans.
>Personal Website:
>http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm
>
>————– next part ————–
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed…
>URL:
>http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/pipermail/heidegger/attachments/20061231/31c47217/attachment-0001.html
>
>——————————
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:45:34 +0000
>From: “michaelP”
>Subject: Re: drifting. . .into posing as somebody else.
>To: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
>
>Message-ID:
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”iso-8859-1″
>
>In a message dated 31/12/2006 08:54:25 GMT Standard Time,
>michael@sandwich-de-sign.co.uk writes:
>Jud, in your usual haste to rapidly demonstrate your enormous sophistic
>wit,
>and without here commenting on the vitriolic mash-up you evidence below in
>your ‘response’, you have not noticed that your respondent is one Marie
>Mainil and *not Allen* (and not at all in the style of the Allen I know…
>and different email address to boot); equally, another of your recent
>respondents is one Les Smith and *not Lee Smith*.
>
>A little less speed and a little more respect perhaps in the new year…
>
>regards
>
>michaelP
>
>Jud:
>The fault is not mine but the obvious young person [beginning psychologist
>manqué and apparent newbie to computers - judging by how and what he/she
>writes] posing as *Allen* who signed the message as *Allen.*
>
> Look again at his or her message. HE or SHE is the one who must apologise
>to Allen and me/I.
>
>This is the first time that somebody has posed as somebody else on this
>list. The fact that this craven idiot concealed his or her true identity
>from this list and posed as someone else is highly suspicious anyway.
>
>THERE IS NO MENTION OF *MARIE MAINIL* ON THE E-MAIL I RECEIVED!!!! [see
>original e-mail reproduced below] and the name is entirely new to me.
>
>He/she signed as: *ALLEN,* and the poseur has even spelt it right, for it
>is a somewhat unusual spelling of the name here in Britain. The fact that
>it
>had a different e-mail address is irrelevant, people change them and some
>have more than one etc. En passant Allen has always misspelled my name as
>*Judd* anyway.
>
>It is a shame that due to this young incompetent sap Allen got the sharp
>edge of my tongue, but my comments re: *The book which should never have
>been written* (*Being Jewish - Arselicking Heidegger* as I heard it
>referred to in my university) and my critique of him as a traitor to his
>own
>people is nothing new. I am sorry however that this critique had to be
>reiterated at a festive time of year.
>
>What I DO expect is an apology to Allen and me from the so-called *Marie
>Mainil* for the disruption he/she has caused by sending an e-mail
>purporting
>to come from another member of the list.
>
>I reproduce the original message from this person below and it will be seen
>that it purports to come from Allen.
>
>Jud, firstly, I can see why the confusion might have arisen in you because
>of the supposed ’signing’ of “Allen”: because I know that Marie Mainil is a
>member of this list (just look at the list membership list, and, she has
>posted to this list before), it seems to me that the “Allen” at the end of
>her speech came from a previous conversation between yourself and Allen and
>Tympan (whose segment follows in Marie’s post) and does not constitute a
>signature (in fact, and unfortunately, she has not signed her post this
>time). Some of this kind of confusion arises, I think, because of the
>opening up of postings to HTML (different colours, font sizes, bold, etc),
>whereas earlier it was plain text with a clearer sense of who is quoting
>who
>etc. Again, Marie’s speech is not at all in Allen’s style. At least give
>her
>the benefit of the doubt.
>
>Secondly: as for “my comments re: *The book which should never have been
>written* (*Being Jewish - Arselicking Heidegger* as I heard it referred to
>in my university) and my critique of him as a traitor to his own people is
>nothing new. I am sorry however that this critique had to be reiterated at
>a festive time of year.”: your ’sorrow’ sounds as hollow as your
>sophistry… And, just as sadly, you confuse “critique” with crude
>vitriolic
>attack: a critique should bring out salient and pertinent features of
>another’s thinking, not merely throw bombs.
>
>regards
>
>michaelP
>
>Jud,
>
>Amongst your many services to this list is the opportunities you present
>for
>the
>diagnosis of philosophical pathologies, that is systemic errors you make
>that seriously
>infect any semblance of philosophical sensibility you might have once had,
>the
>possibility of which you might even have been born with–who am I to say.
>
>The most tiresomely repetitious of these pathologies goes all the way back
>to the
>sophists, most notably Gorgias. It manifests itself most generally as the
>fear-of-being-affected, more specifically, as the unwillingness to confront
>the proximity
>of rhetoric to philosophy. Now please listen carefully.
>
>The fear-of-being-affected correlates with an obsessive need to be in
>control, most
>specifically through the power of reason. As is true of most obsessions,
>reason itself
>is used to fend off any possibility of overcoming itself. The very idea of
>such
>self-overcoming, itself overcomes the sufferer with a potentially lethal
>deficient form
>of rhetoric, which has come to be known in our time as “critique.” This
>deficient
>rhetorical form can be self justifying to a fault, making it impossible for
>the sufferer
>even to hear, let alone comprehend any ideas which might expose him to the
>dreaded
>open-ness which he associates with a complete abnegation of the
>independence
>and
>integrity of the self. This integrity and independence he feels an
>overwhelming
>obligation to protect , using the iron-clad capacity of reason to turn
>away anything
>that stands in its path back to itself, often with an ingratiating wit and
>charm which
>endears the sufferer to himself to a degree which sometimes results in
>anti-social
>behaivior, fortunately of a rather benign variety.
>
>Now as to the unwillingness to confront the proximity of rhetoric to
>philosophy. The
>problem here is an inability (congenital or not, I cannot say) to
>recognize,
>let alone
>appreciate the constitutive power of language, a power often associated
>with
>the Greek
>”Poiesis,” whose relationship to truth as the Greeks conceived of it, we
>can
>discuss at a
>later session, should you choose to engage what I have to say with a good
>faith effort
>(words deliberately and carefully chosen) to keep the more extreme
>expressions of your
>obsession in check.
>
>It might be encouraging to recollect the sophistic heights of Gorgias’s
>expression of the
>obsession:
>
>Being does not exist,
>If it did exist, it could not be cognized,
>And even if it could be cognized, it could not be communmicated.
>
>I have known some talented obsessives in my life, but few if any could come
>up with such
>an apparently thought-tight “conundrum”
>
>Further realizing how hearing about fellow sufferers, especially well-known
>ones, can
>give one so afflicted some hope, I give you the best and the worst of so
>called
>”analytical” philosophers.
>
>Best wishes for this new year and all those that might come, though at this
>point, one
>has reason to doubt.
>
>Allen
>
>under control.Quoting GEVANS613 at aol.com:
>
>
>[Hide Quoted Text]
>The rhetorical dimension of language is “of language,” we being only
>partially at cause and not clearly able to understand. What I’m trying to
>say here
>is that in some, or large part we are subject to language and can act only
>through it. I don’t think even Spinoza’s artful attempt to contain language
>within a geometric frame outsmarts the determination of language to force
>its
>will upon us.
>
>I think the best we can do under the circumstances is to think language as
>such, language as it wants to be thought, observing our capacity to be
>affected
>even as it is being affected.
>
>Jud:
>Language has no *rhetorical dimension* nor does it have a *will* or the
>capacity to *want* anything. Such things are in keeping with the fantasies
>of
>the painted savage cavorting before a baobab tree in an effort to
>influence
> the
>spirit which resides within its gnarled trunk to cast or remove a spell
>from
>some smelly, shit-encrusted fellow anthropophagite.
>
>No sign has any feelings. A traffic-light doesn’t give a flying fig whether
>the car drivers that allow it to control them, suddenly decide to ignore
>the
>rules of the road which they themselves have invested in its shiny pole and
>flashing circuitry and smash themselves to bits in the sequel of such a
>stupid
>semiotic snub.
>
>To start off the seventh year of the twenty-first century with the
>suggestion that being human entails being concerned with either
>subjectively accepting
>and acting passively in response to the agenda of a personified language,
>or
>attempting to outsmart *the determination* of a personated language to
>force
>*its will* upon us. is utterly bizarre and evokes an image of a hairy,
>unkempt creature with pronounced eyebrow ridges and a jaw which cries out
>for the
>attentions of a maxillofacial surgeon and orthognathic surgery, sitting
>before a modern computer in a centrally-heated modern room banging his
>calloused
>hairy hands up and down incomprehensibly on the mud-bespattered keyboard.
>
>It is HUMAN BEINGS who produce, generate, and agree the meaning of the
>signs
>we call *words* and *traffic-lights* and they have no agenda, will or
>determination of their own. We can make such signs effective for
>communication, or
>alter the combinations and with it the effective outcomes as Heidegger
>did,
>with the resultant communicational obfuscation, and the ratcheting-up of
>anti-Semitism and with it the rhetorical road-deaths of the camps.
>
>Tympan has a far better grasp of this rhetorical process, as can be seen in
>his passage below, for he rightly identifies the *you* and the *your* and
>the
>*yourself* and the *children, friends or wife and lover* and the *women*
>and
>the *men* and *Deleuze* that rocks and is rocked by the bark of language
>and
>NOT a *willful* *language itself* intent on allowing either intelligent
>communication or semantic bedlam as the whim of the moment takes it.
>
>But the personification of langauge apart…The Season’s Greetings to
>all!
>
>Tympan:
>Well yes this is what the study of rhetoric is all about,– fine feelings
>that we get from polishing this surface so that it becomes more smooth and
>graceful and all that jazz. No matter what, you are selling yourself
>whether it
>is to your children, friends or wife and lover. The tropes are similar but
>the
>actual words are different and with the latter I think the body is affacted
>in a more erotic fashion. Drowning can be a scary thing or not… listen
>to
>how women discuss and spin the sort of ideas men like Deleuze and us
>express in
>our own way:
>
>
>
>regards,
>
>Jud Evans.
>————– next part ————–
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed…
>URL:
>http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/pipermail/heidegger/attachments/20061231/1959b8de/attachment.html
>
>——————————
>
>_______________________________________________
>heidegger mailing list
>heidegger@soca.ecu.edu.au
>http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/heidegger
>
>
>End of heidegger Digest, Vol 24, Issue 27
>*****************************************

Posted on Sunday, December 31st, 2006 at 7:00 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback