Heidegger

Cologne 04-Oct-2007

Jud: “Therefore to claim that entities cannot exist without existing AS
SOMETHING, is simply to state that an entity, to be an entity, must
exist in such combination of fashions, states, and manners of material
modes which admit and permit, allow and endow it with the necessary
extension, size, shape and corporeal nature to exist and be present in
the cosmos.”

ME: To rephrase: “Entities cannot exist without existing AS a
combination of fashions, states, and manners of material modes…”.
These “material modes” such as “size” and “shape” are presumably not the
entities themselves, i.e. the “material modes” are DIFFERENT from, OTHER
than the entities themselves. Therefore entities cannot exist without
existing AS different from themselves, i.e. entities cannot exist
without existing AS what they are not, i.e. as _mae on_, i.e. as their
other.
And if this other does not exist (and in our Elmatist’s opinion, it does
not, ‘being’ (sic) a mere “useful fiction”), then all the worse for the
entity that purportedly exists, for then the entity exists AS
non-existent.
This clumsy, belligerent, loudmouthed, opinionated and above all stupid
oaf with his polemical smoke-screens stumbles and blunders unerringly
from one self-contradiction to the next without ever noticing it. (In
this respect, too, he shows himself to be the inversion of the
light-footed sophist.) He doesn’t realize that having a counter-opinion
is a long chalk, not to say a world apart, from having any sort of
counter-argument.

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

GEVANS613 at aol.com schrieb Wed, 3 Oct 2007 17:41:29 EDT:

> In a message dated 03/10/2007 artefact at t-online.de writes:Cologne
> 03-Oct-2007 Dr. Strangelove: “Entities cannot exist without existing
> AS SOMETHING.” This is what our Elmatist tells us below — an
> ontological statement about what and how entities are. But our
> Elmatist has told us just as often that the category of “something” is
> an abstraction, a mere conceptual figment and that abstractions do NOT
> exist (never mind the self-contradiction in claiming that the
> non-existent Something IS an abstraction — we are moving on to the
> next self-refutation).Jud:*Oh! Dearie, dearie, dearie me!* Alice said
> to the Fieldmouse, *our scatterbrained Mad Hatter is at it again,* she
> exclaimed. Another grasping at the riverside straws of
> misrepresentation as you sink below the surface of seriousness. So
> anxious is our locum tenens lout to recoup some of his rapidly
> evaporating kudos and respect that his Platonic platitudes are
> gasifying into such a bewrayed bouleversement, he ignores my long term
> [year in and year out] statements, that the employment of useful
> fictions makes for brevity, and allows one to avoid needless
> circumlocution, ambage or periphrasis. In civilized language it is
> quite permissible to use a certain word for communicative convenience,
> as long as it is made quite clear in advance [as I have been doing for
> years] that such use does not confer existential status. It is a
> subject that has cropped up many times over the years with
> MichaelP.The operative factor is NOT the use of such abstractives,
> which for the most part are useful tools of human discourse, but the
> belief, or the suggestion that such terms actually have a nominatum
> somewhere out in the world to which the word refers. Therefore to
> claim that entities cannot exist without existing AS SOMETHING, is
> simply to state that an entity, to be an entity, must exist in such
> combination of fashions, states, and manners of material modes which
> admit and permit, allow and endow it with the necessary extension,
> size, shape and corporeal nature to exist and be present in the
> cosmos.The Daseinic Doctor Dee* [see below]Our Elmatist is a
> comfortable, conventional sort of chap for whom language is an
> eminently useful tool, and he avuncularly intimates to us: “I do not
> agree that such reificational practices invalidate abstraction if
> employed with care, as a useful element of human discourse. In my view
> it is enough to inform people as to the dangers of reifying such
> abstractions and advise them that to think about a non-existent is not
> to existentialise it — but merely to instantiate the concept of
> it.”Jud: And to INSTANTIATE the *concept* rather than to attempt the
> EXISTIALISATION of [something] some unspecified object is exactly what
> I have done and no more. I deliberately spelt that out in advance, and
> indeed you have quoted it, but so fevered is your desire to find a
> chink in the eliminativist ontological armour that there is no end
> that you will go to in your desperation. To say that *something* does
> not exist is, by the way, NOT to say of course that there are no
> objects in the cosmos which exist which have not been individually
> specified [named] by earth-bound humans, but I would guess that by
> your track record to date, such a subtle ontological distinction is
> far beyond the intellectual limits of or resident Dr.
> Unsubtilis.Doctor Dee:Concepts, for our smug Elmatist, are merely
> figmental projections onto the screen of consciousness generated by
> the internal whirrings of neurological activity.Jud:You are an
> academic anachronism who lacks assiduousness and REALLY does not pay
> attention. How often have I told you that *consciousness* does not
> exist? Watch my lips [if your attention span permits.] Only conscious
> beings exist - the IS NO wibbly-wobbly witchery woo within - no *mind*
> or *consciousness* or *soul.* No Elixir of Life exists within the
> bubbling retort. The sacrificial oak contains wood fibre, sap, and is
> heterogeneous, hygroscopic, cellular and anisotropic material. There
> are no *spirits’ or *souls* ensconced within the *Temple of the Mind.*
> No greedy spirituous ghoul abides within* the *Holy Oak* waiting to
> act as agents of the god as the blood of the sighing sacrificial child
> soaks into the loam of the forest clearing.Dr. Dee:*[see
> below]Accordingly, an abstraction like something is merely a
> “non-existent”, “useful element of human discourse”. Whence it follows
> that: Entities cannot exist without existing AS a non-existent. Hence
> all entities are non-existent; they cannot exist at all.Jud:The above
> is obviously travesty and gross misrepresentation of my known and
> public position. But NOW the floor is yours to bring proof to the list
> that in your opinion this is NOT true. Your evidence that indeed
> abstractions and reifications DO EXIST will be read with great
> interest I am sure.For my part I can show you the oak and the human
> head - you show me the *mind* and the *spirit* within.Dr. Merlin:The
> experience of our Eliminative Materialist in his efforts to get at the
> nitty-gritty of what really, really, truly exists therefore comes to
> nought, and he ends up as the inverted sophist that he is, dangling
> upside down from a gibbet of his own self-contradictory making. (The
> upright sophist, a more slippery fellow than our simple-minded
> Elmatist, argues conversely that that which is not (_to mae on_)
> cannot be said, so that everything he says, of necessity, truly
> exists.) So much for the experience of an imbecile intellect. Jud:Your
> reasoning is that of a convolvulus plant that wraps itself the wrong
> way around the plant upon which it is parasitical. I have made it
> quite clear that I am not a Parmenidean and that I am quite happy that
> the concept of *to mae on* be employed as a useful fiction. I have
> been saying to the Sage of Sandwich for years that I have no wish to
> ban abstraction, and I have driven home the point time and again that
> the eliminativist agenda is not to eliminate but to educate. You are a
> particularly lazy student, the concentration that you must have had at
> one time in order to achieve your hard earned doctoral distinction
> seems to have deserted you. Arguing with an eliminativist is not the
> same as the intellectual easy pickings of Parmenidean to mae onic
> proscription, or the effortless intellectual domination of lesser
> inter-trannie discourse.More concentration is required, for you will
> be more stretched - your thoughtless platitudes challenged as is
> happening here.Now, please let us have more effort please, for from
> my point of view this debate is like me taking dialectical cookies
> from a cognitive kindergartener. Regards,Jud Personal Website:
> http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac… Dee (July
> 13, 1527–1609) was a noted English mathematician, astronomer,
> astrologer, geographer, occultist, and consultant to Queen Elizabeth
> I. He also devoted much of his life to alchemy, divination, and
> Hermetic philosophy. Dee straddled the worlds of science and magic
> just as they were becoming distinguishable. One of the most learned
> men of his time, he had lectured to crowded halls at the University of
> Paris when still in his early twenties. John was an ardent promoter of
> mathematics, a respected astronomer and a leading expert in
> navigation, having trained many of those who would conduct England’s
> voyage of discovery (he coined the term “British Empire”). At the same
> time, he immersed himself deeply in magic and Hermetic philosophy,
> devoting the last third of his life almost exclusively to these
> pursuits. For Dee, as with many of his contemporaries, these
> activities were not contradictory, but particular aspects of a
> consistent world-view.—–

Posted on Thursday, October 4th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback