drifting. . .into posing as somebody else
December 31st, 2006, search relatedRelated posts :: my doctor tells me :: drifting. . .into posing as somebody else :: my doctor tells me :: my doctor tells me
> 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*
Marie, Allen, Jud, … I must apologise for the silliness I unleashed; the
post really didn’t sound at all like Allen to me, but… Back to Heidegger.
regards and happy new year to all
mP
>
>
>>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/a
ttachment-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/a
ttachment.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
>>*****************************************
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Who is the sweetheart of the Japanese and always holds something in his
> hands? Live Search knows! How about you?
> http://search.live.com/images/results.as…
>
> _______________________________________________
> heidegger mailing list
> heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
> http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/mailman/listi…
> http://heidegger.an-archos.com/
>
Michael Pennamacoor
Abgrundrisse
tel: 01304 617626
fax: 0870 163 8935
e: michael at abgrundrisse.net
printable sellable goodies http://www.cafeshops.com/Abgrundrisse
picture portfolio http://michael-pennamacoor.fotopic.net
pictures for sale http://www.yessy.com/abgrundrisse
