Heidegger

In a message dated 05/05/2008 00:28:01 GMT Standard Time, jPolanik at nc.rr.com
writes:

GEVANS613 at aol.com wrote:

>jPolanik@nc.rr.com wrote

>[Jud]: *Quote: The Dasein mechanism is a grammatical and semantic trick
>to allow EXISTENCE or BEING to become a predicate. The clavis
>universalis to an understanding of existence is an understanding of the
>*attributive of modality* word *BE* in its many conjugational guises.
>(Was, were, is, am, are, being, etc.) Heidegger attempts to drive in a
>wedge and distinguish a dichotomy or dualism between the named ‘ontic’
>entity, (which he characterises wrongly as: “anything that is”) and the
>sum of its existential modalities that is referenced by its name.*

>*Joe: 1. have you considered the possibility that the non-noun uses of
>’being’ (gerund, continuous present) are given inappropriate emphasis
>because of translation conventions that may be misleading.
>specifically, I am referring to the decision by McQuarrie and Robinson
>to translate ‘Siendes’ as ‘entity’ or ‘entities’ rather than as ‘being’
>or ‘beings’. these are all nouns. my point is that if the noun uses are
>obscured by the translators, only the verb-based uses appear.*

>*Jud:*

>*They were correct to do so. From Heidegger’s perspective there is
>little difference between a being and an entity. *

precisely. it would have helped, I think, if the translators had just
used the literal meanings instead of mentioning in a footnote that ‘das
Sciende’ = ‘that which is’ and ‘ein Sciendes’ = ’something which is’.
instead, by using ‘entity’ they have to note that ‘entity’ is being used
to mean ’something which is’ — a definition they note may not match
contemporary Anglo-American philosophical usage.

>*Joe:
>2. as a noun it is appropriately combined with a locative. the problem
>is that Heidegger (and/or translators) chose the wrong one. if you
>recall that Heidegger claimed that Dasein should always refer to itself
>in the first person (’I am’), it should be clear that the correct
>locative is ‘here’ not ‘there’.*

>*Jud:*

>*I am unclear what you mean here. The import of *Being* and the meaning
>it gives to the term - *being there* is *living there.*

>*In English both phrases are exchangable. *

>*(1) Is Joe back from London? - Yes, being there proved too expensive
>for him.*

>*(2) Is Joe back from London? - Yes, living there proved too expensive
>for him.*

‘here’ and ‘there’ are both locatives; but, to translate dasein as
‘being there’ contradicts Heidegger’s claim that dasein should refer to
itself in the first person. from the first-person perspective, ‘here’ is
the correct locative to use. I would say ‘I am this being here’ not
‘that being there’. similarly, I would say ‘I am living here’ while ‘you
are living over there’.
Jud:
Yup - it is a theme I wrote extensively about yonks ago on this list.
If I was blessed with Tone’s ferret-like ability to root it out from the
archives I would - but I am syudying for my finals right now.

Many people translate it as *Being There* (The Peter Sellars Movie included)
I said in my piece a long time ago that one can only ever be HERE and never
there. (Here is where I always am situated.)

Just like: “Cogito ergo me sum” or if you prefer - “Cogito ergo ego me sum.
” Latin often adds the demonstrative “ipse” meaning “myself” for the first
person: “Cogito ergo ipse sum”. I’ll translate that with - I think, therefore
“I myself” am (different from “I think, therefore I am myself”).

Just practicing… DesCartes could have said that - for it would be a bit
loopy (even for a kid brainwashed by the Jesuits) to have said

*I think therefore I am somebody else.* The whole wheeze was a load
of old counter-factual rubbish anyway.
Just a load of *let’s pretend* like barmy old Nazi-features and his
gerundial japes.

>*I do not (and I do not say in my text) that Heidegger was hoping to
>solidify ‘being’ or ‘being there’ into a noun. I quite clearly state
>that the Dasen con-trick is an attempt to instantiate the abstract noun
>’being’ ( within a gerundial wrap) in such a way that it becomes
>acceptable as a predicate.*

you quote yourself asking

>*Why on earth did he reject all these pronouns and insist on naming his
>protagonist not with a form of noun or pronoun but a gerundial
>construction ‘Das-sein’ (being there) which is the continuous present
>form of the word which was his nemesis – ‘BE – IS – Being? What
>grammatical skullduggery is afoot?

but you didn’t quote your own answer
Jud:
It’s called rhetoric. I was referring to the gerundial wrap. Heidegger
would have made a good fairground hustler and card-sharp.

>The answer is simple, Heidegger gambolled [correctly] that after a
>while the real underlying meaning of the 3rd-person continuous present
>fragment – ‘being there’ or ‘being in the world’ as he later lengthened
>it to, would be forgotten by the readers of ‘Being and Time, ‘ and it
>would be accepted into his philosophical lexicon as a fully fledged
>noun, which is the way he boldly treats it in his writings.

that sounds like you’re saying that Heidegger was hoping that his
vocabulary would become acceptable thru continued use — which is what
I meant by ’solidify’.
Amongst a certain crowd of trannies it has solidified. They gabble it like
Jehovah’s Witnesses on speed. You should read Dr Falacia when he’s had a few
schnapps - talk about *Talking in (Trannie) Tongues* Those fast-talking
American reverends from the snake handling cult would be amazed and let go
their rattlers in awe. BTW, the only people dreaded more than a Heideggerian
knocking on your door are the Jovies

The Philosopher of Nazism’s vocabulary about eliminating the Jews become
has’nt become acceptable through continued use though -
they treat it like masturbation or cancer and never mention it. Strange
coves - the way they dodder towards death heidy-style, rather redolent of the
ostrich family doncha think?

Jud.

Posted on Sunday, May 11th, 2008 at 6:02 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback