Heidegger

Cologne 05-Oct-2007

Jud: Any beginner will tell you that the properties of a being are not
DIFFERENT from it - they make up the compendium of the human
descriptions of the perceivable characteristics of the manner in which
the adjectivally described object exists. They form the Gesamtsumme (the
grand total or sum total) of the humanly perceived features of an
object - its colour, size, smell, taste, weight, mass, etc. as filtered
through the human somesthesis - the faculty of bodily perception; the
sensory systems associated with the human body; including the skin
sensors and proprioception and the internal organs if you ingest some of
the material.

ME: So now we have the Elmatist telling us (fictitiously, of course, and
blundering and bungling like the dolt and booby he is from one
self-refutation to the next) that “the properties of a being are not
DIFFERENT from it”. And what are properties for the Elmatist? They are,
in his own words, “the compendium of the human descriptions of the
perceivable characteristics of the manner in which the adjectivally
described object exists”. From this it follows (in not even two, but in
a single step) that entities are nothing OTHER than, i.e. NO DIFFERENT
from “the compendium of the human descriptions…” Well, that’s news to
me, for the Elmatist has been asseverating his opinion ad nauseum that
“human descriptions” in language are precisely NOT the entities
themselves, but merely “useful fictions” for it.

These properties are then further verbosely asserted to “form the
Gesamtsumme (the grand total or sum total) of the humanly perceived
features of an object - its colour, size, smell, taste, weight, mass,
etc. as filtered through the human somesthesis”. So, this Gesamtsumme is
NO DIFFERENT from the entity itself, i.e. the entity is the SAME AS a
bundle of human perceptions.

This is in line with the Elmatist’s eternal, prejudiced opinion, whose
truth is to be ‘established’ by means of endless, aggressive, and above
all mindless asseveration ad nauseum, that only sensorially perceptible
entities exist, paired with the equally frequent avouchment that
abstractions do not exist. But “sensorially perceptible entities” is
itself an abstraction, so this route, too, ends up with non-existent
entities.

And why only sensorially perceptible entities should exist is a silly
prejudice that has served all the (failed) attempts at materialism as an
unquestioned, but worthless, axiom for two-and-a-half millennia. But
that cannot stop an orally incontinent, coprolalaic half-wit from trying
nonetheless — in a self-averredly entirely fictititious discourse, of
course.

The nicest thing about Eliminative Materialism is that it eliminates
itself. It is an attempted philosophy that self-implodes, in short,
self-eliminativism.

I enjoy your insults because, coming from you, they put me in the good
company of Plato, Hegel, Heidegger et al, leaving you on the outside.
Flattery coming from you is the kiss of death. For the rest, your
belligerent insults of everyone from Plato to Eldred serve merely as a
smoke-screen for a drastic paucity of thought.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_- 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 Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:29:29 EDT:

> In a message dated 04/10/2007 21:45:12 GMT Standard Time,
> artefact at t-online.de writes: 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. Jud:You haven’t got a
> bloody clue about ontology have you? Now come on - be honest now -
> admit it. We can see you blushing. How you have managed to bluff your
> way along (up here in the north we say: *winging it* ) as a supposed
> philosopher all these years? God knows, and he won’t tell, because
> according to Nietzsche he snuffed it ages ago. You are even clueless
> about your own supposed trannie/idealist/metaphysical ontology. Any
> beginner will tell you that the properties of a being are not
> DIFFERENT from it - they make up the compendium of the human
> descriptions of the perceivable characteristics of the manner in which
> the adjectivally described object exists. They form the Gesamtsumme
> (the grand total or sum total) of the humanly perceived features of
> an object - its colour, size, smell, taste, weight, mass, etc. as
> filtered through the human somesthesis - the faculty of bodily
> perception; the sensory systems associated with the human body;
> including the skin sensors and proprioception and the internal organs
> if you ingest some of the material.
>
> That which exists and the so-called ‘essences,’ or existential
> modalities, or way that an entity exists, is precisely the same
> thing.Are you claiming that the fact that you are bald and have a
> large sebaceous cyst on the end of your nose is different or *other*
> from *the bald human entity with a large sebaceous cyst on the end of
> your nose known as Michael Eldred?*Here the adjective *bald* and the
> *large sebaceous cyst* helps describe the miserable object known as
> Michael Eldred.* In all the years on this list I have never read
> anything so completely stupid as your completely nutty understanding
> of properties, and this from a guy who claims to have a doctorate?
> Where the hell did you get that from - Disneyland? By your
> *knowledge* of properties,* it would appear not to be worth the paper
> it was written upon. Who was it that supervised your doctoral thesis -
> Goofy or Olive Oil? Dr. Disney: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.Jud:I have noticed
> however that you have funked the challenge to provide the list with
> evidence for the existence of your fantasies? How can I argue with an
> utter philosophical moron who doesn’t even know the basics of
> ontology. You have GOT to start trying harder - it’s no use donning
> your old sour kraut mask and taking cover behind the usual barricade
> of add hominem, living in Germany is making you more and more like
> Herr Goebells every day. You are just showing your utter inadequacy.
> You are not getting anywhere with your bully-boy SS. tactics with me
> Mr. Michael. E. Mouse. You are not slagging off the other members of
> the list and getting away with your bullwhip behaviour now you old
> Reificational Road Runner.PS. If you are deaf as well as daft. you
> might be interested in the new *Libraries of Deaf History* feature I
> have put in the Athenaeum Library today.There’s a feature accessible
> via a German link too, about what it was like to be deaf and live
> under Heidegger’s Beloved Third Reich courtesy of his Hero Adolf
> Hitler. I mean what it was like to live if a deaf person escaped
> sterilization or gassing by monoxide poisoning that is.

Posted on Friday, October 5th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback