Heidegger

Cologne 02-Jan-2007

GEVANS613 at aol.com schrieb Mon, 1 Jan 2007 13:24:37 EST:

> In a message dated 01/01/2007 14:01:55 GMT Standard Time,
> artefact at t-online.de writes: Jud: [earlier]Wrong. You forget about the
> nominational implication or designatory discrimination implied,
> inferred, deduced and derived both by the addressor and addressee in
> such sentences, together with the employment of the definite or
> indefinite article. Antecedal [historical] sentential implication also
> plays an important part in the negation or instantiaton or
> representation of a form or an instance of universalisation. Thus: the
> sentence. *The frog hopped on to the lilypad* nominates a PARTICULAR
> frog and a PARTICULAR lillypad.

> ME:Here you confuse particularity with singularity. Particularity is
> merely the way a universal breaks down or particularizes itself into
> species, as in “The daffodil is a flower.”

> Jud:Reminder: My caps are always for emphasis - not overbearingness or
> discourtesy. Ha ha! How can a *Universal itself* - which is just a
> mental fiction - *break down? Hahaha! Does an individuate frog *ascend
> upwards Jesus-like* into an imaginary component in an imaginary
> *accumulate* or conglomerate *whole?* This is crazy stuff which goes
> back to mankind’s most primitive, naive and crude past, which can be
> traced to the belief in spirits, hobgoblins, pookars and bugbears.
> These *mentalisations* cannot be found in the world. They are no more
> than cognitive tools or mental grappling-hooks for getting a purchase
> on our environment and TALKING ABOUT IT. The mentating activity that
> goes on in the brain has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH A FROG ON A
> LILLYPAD. We are NOT addressing the Platonic abstraction
> *particularity* [see above] the reference was to a *particular*
> frog/lillypad.A *particular* [see any dictionary] is a small part that
> can be considered separately from THE WHOLE - but there exists no
> WHOLE - what exists are millions of particular, individual, unique,
> specific frogs and lillypads. Neither frogs nor lillypads exist as one
> huge concentrated conglomerate ball of salientian or liliaceous plant
> matter of which each animal or plant is a constituent part.Look. I
> will illustrate it in dialogue form.*Do *UNIVERSALS* exist?* says one
> primitive, mentallly-challenged Greek with a peculiar flat-faced
> physiognomy to his companion as they sit in the dust of the agora. We
> shall call the enquiree: *Dimitus Nescientotle.*Dimwititus
> Nescientotle:*Damn these frogs - they are everywhere! Look! there is
> one cheeky long-tongued batrachian catching the flies that buzz around
> my lunchtime snack of black olives, capturing those irritating
> Haematobia irritans with its sticky lingual lash and wolfing them down
> with a satisfying blink of its yellow eyes.Are we suffering from a
> plague of these slimy creatures? These frogs can be found everywhere.
> The streams and rills that runabout my home village in Pharsalus in
> Thessalia are full of them. Every Athenic pond and puddle seethes with
> them. A hoplite recently returned from service with the Great
> Alexander the Macedonian told me they are to be found all over Asia -
> their existence is truly ubiquitous and universal. Taurorhupos:
> *But hold! it is not their EXISTENCE that is ubiquitous and universal.
> Each individual frog exists in one PARTICULAR spatio-temporal spot -
> but the *existence* of that frog does not exist - only the individual
> frog exists. Dimiwittus Nescientotle:But the fact that they are to be
> discovered everywhere in our world means that their presence on earth
> can be described as being universal - is that not so Taurorhupos?
> Taurorhupos:No - it is not so. The FACT that we are aware that other
> frogs exist universally in Pharsalus, and others exist all over Asia
> does not mean that the FACT that we are aware that frogs exist in
> Pharsalus, and others exist all over Asia itself EXISTS. FACTS do not
> exist - only that which is factually described by a statement or
> assertion of verified information about something that is the case it
> is claimed to exist - exists. Nor does it mean that we are free to
> reify that fact into a semantically meaningful noun complete with a
> nominatum - for no such nominatum called a *universal* exists. Only
> the thinking, cognising humans - you and I - sitting here in the dust
> claiming or disclaiming the existence of *universals* exist.Each frog
> exists separately as a uniquely individual object wherever it exists.
> A crowd does not exist. Only individuals which are crowded together
> exist. The term *crowd* is merely a mental tool we have developed to
> avoid naming each member of the public separately crowded together in
> close proximity. In a like manner the term *universal* is also a
> mental tool we have developed to avoid [the impossibility] naming each
> element scattered over a wide area of our world or the cosmos.*

ME: So you really do not understand the distinction between a
generalization and a universal.

> Jud:[earlier](A) Have referred to the frog or lillypad in some earlier
> dialogue or text. (B) Will continue by introducing additional
> information concerning the frog or lillypad in a subsequent sentence
> or sentences, in which the precise nature of the frog and/or lillypad
> is added to establish its ontological singularity. It can clearly be
> seen from the above that what is addressed is a single unique frog and
> a single unique lillypad and NOT all the frogs and lillypads in the
> cosmos.

> ME:Here, having already confused singularity with particularity, you
> now confuse generality with universality (das allen Gemeinsame with
> das Allgemeine)..

> Jud:No confusion reigns. A particulate (an object composed of distinct
> particles) or a particular object is one that is separate and distinct
> from others of the same group or category.A singularity (being one of
> a kind) is simply another way of describing the same thing. Your
> confusion lies in reifying the human brain-processes by which we
> organise the way we conceive of things and mentally package those
> things into convenient *KINDS* AND *CLASSES.* Confusion as yours
> results in reifying such instrumental classificational activities of
> the brain into REAL THINGS. In this manner there is little difference
> twixt your position and Meinong’s, fantasy of the Crystal Mountain, or
> even some aspects of the wilder shores of Berkeleyism.

> Dr. Eldred:A universal does necessarily refer to all members of a
> class.

> Jud:The term *class* has no nominatum [it does not refer to any object
> in particular]. *Class* is just an imaginary or *let’s pretend* box
> into which similarly perceived objects are pretended to be thrown.
> *Let’s Pretend -Universals* don’t tidy frogs into one group. *Let’s
> Pretend -Universals* tidy the human brain-processes for ease of recall
> just like we order a computer to save things in appropriate folders
> and files.

> Dr. Eldred: In fact, in the statement, “This is a
> singularity.”"singularity” is a universal.

> Jud: You keep obsessively introducing abstraction and typically are
> confusing two meanings of the word *singularity* Look again at the
> sentence you have just typed. What leaps from the screen at hits you
> in the face? THE INDEFINITE ARTICLE has either been subconsciously or
> deliberately excluded. WHY?The FIRST use of the term is fine: *This is
> a singularity.* But then comes the typical Heideggerian *modal switch*
> or obsessive obfuscation. You insert the word *singularity* bereft of
> a definite or indefinite article thereby CONVERTING the word from a
> noun which points to a definite singularity as in your “This is a
> singularity.” [employing the adjective *this* which = unique or
> specific to a person or thing] to one of your beloved abstractions,
> which has the same base coinage as *love, or freedom or any other such
> otherworld generalisation.Look. (A) Singularity - [noun] That which is
> singular.
> (B) Singularity - The quality or condition of being singular. See the
> difference? (A) A single frog is a living, breathing singularity.
> (B) Refers to no particular object - has no denotatum and is simply a
> human mentalisation which does not exist. Only the mentating qualifier
> or conditionaliser exists.

> Dr. Eldred:All of the three categories in the triad singularity,
> particularity and universality are universals.

> Jud:All five abstractions above: [1] categories, [2] singularity, [3]
> particularity, [4] universality and [5] universals are simply the way
> that you describe the contents of your mental toolshed. They do NOT
> exist in themselves, but are only lets-pretend flower-beds into which
> you seed and plant your pretty verbal signs.Only YOU the head gardener
> who uses these useful fictions to husband the blooms in your
> communicational rose-garden exist.

> Dr. Eldred:And no singularity (i. e. unique, single being) can be
> addressed by language without raising it to the level of universality
> (NOT generality).

> Jud:BY *LANGUAGE* *Language couldn’t *raise* a feather with the
> word *fart.* The frog on the lilypad is NOT *raised to the level of
> universality* when observed and spoken of by a human onlooker. What
> goes on in the head of the human has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
> FROG OR THE UNIVERSE.

> Jud: No such metaphysical transcendence takes place for the frog where
> the unfortunate animal ascends into some humanly conceived *universal
> realm.* No state of being or existence above and beyond the limits of
> material experience is undergone by the frog, nor is the frog
> transmogrified into a state of excelling or surpassing, or going
> beyond usual material limits and becoming a member of some great
> dimension of frog-hood in some rainbow coloured many-roomed universal
> store or commissary in the sky. The metaphysicalisation takes place in
> the brain of THE HUMAN universaliser, whose brain seeks to identify
> the frog, and classify it with the useful fiction we call a
> *category,* ( like we do with all the other elements of our
> environment.] Dr. Eldred:”This is a frog,” e. g. connects a
> singularity with a universal, viz. “frog”.

> Jud:
> *This is a frog,* identifies the object and awards it the name or
> recognisable characteristics which correspond or implicitly refer to
> identifying qualities which members of the English-speaking language
> group have antecedally agreed upon to be communicated by the word
> *frog*. Now consider the following carefully. The word *universal* is
> simply a *word-icon* or shortcut method of compacting the sentence:
> *Identifying characteristics which correspond or implicitly refer to
> recognisable qualities which members of the English-speaking language
> group have antecedally agreed upon to be communicated by the word X.*
> Therefore to claim that a UNIVERSAL exists, is to at the same time say
> that the longer version of the concept - and this can be just about
> ANY periphrastic - round the houses - way of uttering it - ALSO
> EXISTS.

ME: No need for all the crude, northern English invective above and
verbose side-shows to distract attention: The simple statement “This is
a frog” identifies “this” with “a frog”, i.e. a singularity with a
universal. That is, the statement identifies what is non-identical, i.e.
different. So we have a little entrance door to philosophy.

> Dr. Eldred:So the statement has a contradiction within itself,
> something that mere understanding must overlook to stick to its
> abstract, common-sense identities that (unsuccessfully attempt to)
> avoid contradiction like the plague. Jud: I contribute my position in
> the manner of an ontologist. Yours are the misconceptions of the man
> in the street couched in more educated language. You deal in
> abstraction and generality - I deal in objective specifics. You reify
> the useful-fantasies of the human brain into real things - I
> scientifically deny this primitive method of ideation. It is really as
> simple as that.Dr. Eldred:The tangle of terminological jargon of your
> eliminativism is elaborate camouflage for having overlooked the
> simplest and deepest insights of philosophy.

> Jud:Eliminativism HAS no *jargon.*

ME: That’s the best of jokes. Eliminativism consists entirely of
contorted, abominable jargon whose final intent is to baldly assert,
with capricious opinionatedness, that X does not exist for almost any X
one cares to name, that is, with the exception of a select few, quirky,
idiosyncratic, material, nitty-gritty entities accorded the honour by
eliminativism in its graciousness of existing.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact at t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

> Read through the page again. The only neologism I have ever created
> is the term *causal object.* Where is the jargon? All my terms are
> simple, straightforward words, understandable, accessible and
> employable by any member of the public educated to a standard High
> School level.No quasi-impressive alien words are needed - no
> Germanisms or other weird creations of the continental obfuscationists
> are required [the sauerkrautisms I use are for purposes of fun or
> parody.] All simple English, understandable even to the common or
> garden transcendentalist as his sits in his neurophysical garden-shed
> sorting out his bulbs of *Being* into helpful universalisms. .
> regards,Jud Evans. Personal
> Website:http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm

Posted on Tuesday, January 2nd, 2007 at 11:40 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback