Heidegger

In a message dated 28/10/2007 03:25:39 GMT Standard Time,
allen.scult at DRAKE.EDU writes:

In a message dated 10/27/2007 8:46:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jPolanik at nc.rr.com writes:

Georges Metanomski wrote:

> No being _is_ without showing itself _as_
> such-and-such
> =============
> G:
> Some people say that “being” (noun) is an illegal
> and meaningless inflection of the copula “be”.
>
> Still, how would an Arab or a Hebrew say “No being
> _is_
> without showing itself…” when their languages lack
> the verb “to be”?

a good question Georges; but, remember that this comment occurred in a
context (Heideggerian philosophy) in which there are reasonable grounds
for saying that ‘being’ is used as the root predicate (as defined by
Axiom 0 with which you are familiar).

[Axiom 0: there is a predicate, P, such that: for any x that is, x is P.
further analysis:  http://what-am-i.net/lor_foundation.htm]

in any event, Georges, you seem to have some knowledge of these
languages; so, tell us, in all these centuries, has no one found a way
to translate ’si fallor, sum’ or ‘cogito; ergo, sum’ into arabic and hebrew?

Joe

Joe:

The fallacy here is to confound “thinking” with “experience,” the
speculation that Descartes didn’t know the difference between thinking and experience
and “really” intended *experience* when he used the term *cogito.* The
evidence to this is the lack of *is* and the predicate of being in Hebrew and
Arabic that is active when experience rather than thinking serves consciousness.
As a result there are some 5000 separate words in Arabic to indicate “camel”
in all its possible states simply because the predicate of being is abscent
linguistically qua consciousness. “Thinking” remained dormant and whose first
signs of expression was that of the pre-Socratic philosophers and
*physiologoi.* Hence, *prosus* (”right on” as the extention of logic to abstraction)
displaced the mode of mythopoeic expression whose ground was experience.
“Thinking” was thus a Greek invention epitomized as Nous or world mind, qua
Anaxagoras, to accommodate the new found process of “thinking” and the
displacement of mythopoeic “experience” whose emphasis is in feeling and sensation. But
it is only in the mode of thinking that logical abstraction is possible if
not displacing experience (to this day!). Thus, it is sort of cluckish to
assume the Cartesian cogito was really intended to express experience, more so
that the philosopher was not *thinking* in either Hebrew or Arabic. It is not
possible to *experience* the predicate of being although that seems to be the
intent of the notion of dasein whose attempt is to compromise the exclusivness
of *Thinking* and find onself “out there” in the world of feeling, sensation
and that old time experience couched as it is in mythopoeic experience.
Indeed, the idea of dasein incomfortably has its ground and mode of abstraction
in *prosus.*

Bernard

What a fascinating question is this business of the Hebrew for “Being.”

One way of going at it is the poet’s version of the problem, according to
Heidegger: “Where word leaves off no thing may be.”

Jud:
Heidegger was speaking out of his sauerkraut refuse-chute as usual. He
knew NOTHING about *is* and to his dying shame (as a so-called academic and
Greekist manqué) admitted it in public [Grundbegriffe] . The reason that
Hebrew and kin languages disposed of the *is* is because the ancient wisdom was
that copula omission was acceptable. This was because [and still is] folk
were/are bright enough to realise that the name of a subject is sufficient to
existentialise it. Russian partially disposes of the copula in third person
sentences such as *Ivan soldat.* Ivan is a soldier.* People realise that as
soon as the name *Ivan* is mentioned there must be a guy called Ivan and what
follows is predicational of him, so the *is* gradually became a
redundancy. Tagalog and many other Pacific languages also do without a copula (*lack*
would be a wrong word to employ.) In other words in Hebrew the
existentialisation of the subject is arrived at by the surrounding implicature of the
sentential entablature in which it is embedded. The Jews are always one step
ahead of the goys anyway.

Allen:

And Hebrew leaves off before getting to the verb “to be.” But perhaps the
leaving off is a way of making sense of the relationship between Being and
Word.

Jud:

Nothing so fanciful - the wine has grasped a hold of your tongue like
Heidegger has grasped a hold of your testicles.

By leaving off at this point, the Hebrew language declares, “Beyond here,
there is no word.” This declaration, of course, is serious and irrevocable..
For Hebrew, that is. But as Derrida said, “I have but one language, and it is
not mine.”

Jud:
Now you are copying the nut who told Joe that objects show themselves. BTW
there a drain-pipe doing a striptease on TV later. They’ve dubbed it to
*speak* with Aethelred’s voice.]

The Hebrew language does not speak - its the Israelis who do that.

Allen:

So where does all this leaving off leave us? Well, if we are the Hebrew
language, if our language is Hebrew, then we have to think Being without hope
of a word, of Being becoming a word.

Jud:
Georges Metanomski has showed you how to get around it linguistically [he
taught in Tel Aviv Uni for many years and should know]
*Being* is a childish fiction anyway, so why do you need a word? You
could always make one up if it would make you happy?
How about *Diddly -dum - dum - dah? for baby-wavy?

Allen:
But as soon as Heidegger spoke Sein to me, I should say “showed me” Sein
(and I was SAVED, brotha) that is showed me how to think Sein, it wasn’t long
before whenever I read Sein, I knew as much about it as he did. Probably
more.

Jud:
If you had been on his staff at Freiburg he would be talking: *KEY!*
meaning *Key to the library* and p - - - off to Madagascar - not: *Sein.*
As soon as your ass disappeared around the corner Slybegger would have been
on the phone to the Gestapo saying - *Pick him up now while he is packing his
bags.*

Allen:

I think the better part of Wisdom is to go from there. What’s the sense in
endlessly quibbling with what we already Know?!

Jud:
You only THINK you know Allen and that is EXACTLY what happened in
Heidegger’s Germany.

Regards,

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

“In nuclear war all men are cremated equal.”
Dexter Gordon

Posted on Sunday, October 28th, 2007 at 4:25 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback