Exposing the Crifasi Maneuver
April 17th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Exposing the Crifasi Maneuver :: Exposing the Crifasi Maneuver :: Anything Follows from a Contradiction :: Exposing the Crifasi Maneuver
michaelP wrote:
>Polanik’s manouevre:
>>Heidegger is using ‘being’ as his root predicate (ie to carry the
>>meaning ‘not nothing’) while we have been using ‘exists’ or
>>’existence’; so, we must translate back and forth.
>Joe, you seem to have consistently and repeatedly refused to think
>through the oft suggested (Heidegger’s) be-ing as not just not-nothing
>but the very processing of that ‘process’ whereby something present
>(say) presences, the presencing of which is the active (verbal not
>nominal) insurrection (insurrecting) against (and in/from) nothingness.
>The word ‘be-ing’ matters not a jot; it does not signify as a ‘root (or
>any other) predicate’; it is the very possibility of predication itself
>[see my previous post about be-ing & predication].
Michael,
1. in Heidegger’s analysis of ‘be-ing’, he concludes that predicating
‘be-ing’ turns ‘be-ing’ into a being; and, he suggests that this is a
bad thing. if that is the case; then, then Heidegger has found the point
at which he should start to observe Wittgenstein’s advice: whereof one
can not speak thereof one must remain silent. but, instead of following
that advice, Heidegger just kept on cranking out statements predicating
be-ing.
I’m not entirely convinced that turning be-ing into a being thru
predication is a bad thing; but, if it *is* a bad thing, why continue to
do it?
2. we have to consider the structure of the language used when talking
about something that is distinct from or standing out from nothingness.
you’ve used metaphors (presencing, insurrecting) phrased in the active
voice. perhaps metaphors phrased in the passive voice are more
appropriate. how would we know?
and, of course, there is also the middle voice to consider.
a statement like ‘the apple is on the table’ doesn’t have to allude to
the processing of a process by which the apple presences itself. it does
not have to allude to a passive metaphor such as that the apple is a
side-effect of or a condensation of some grand thought rolling around
God’s sensorium or Plato’s heaven of the Ideal Forms.
in the middle voice, the apple just is.
we can displense with both the active and the passive metaphorical
verbiage.
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
