Heidegger

“(T)here you come baby
With your tail dragging the gravy
You know your Ps and Qs
But what you don’t know (Joseph)
Is you’re giving me the blues
….

I’m gonna grow fins
And go back in the water
If you don’t leave me alone
I’m gonna take up with a mermaid
And leave you land-lubbin (thinkers) alone
Leave your land-lubbin (thinkers) alone”

[slightly adapted {see brackets} from Captain Beefheart’s ‘Grow Fins’]

Joseph, another interruption to your battling with Anthony that you probably
don’t want to hear: with the extreme attempts to codify and flatten being
human (etc) into the mathematical (i.e., flat standardised tokenised
translations of rich multidimensional human experience) predicational logic,
set theory, taxonomical trees, etc, you not only do not come close to
understanding the limits of such techno-logics, the very practice of such
techno-logical practices prevents (necessarily!) the uncovering of such
limits (which has been *my* criticism of your approach all along). This is
what is precisely behind Wittgenstein’s famous last words in the
‘Tractatus’:

“My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who
understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used
them — as steps — to climb up beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw
away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)

He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.

What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.”

Of course that ’silence’ (that sits inside all the logical huffing&puffing
hullabaloo) was later filled to the brim with the noise of ‘ordinary
language philosophy’ Wittgenstein eventualised in his ‘Philosophical
Investigations’. As Rosen puts it in his ‘Nihilism’: Wittgenstein went from
noesis without dianoia to dianoia without noesis. In many ways Wittgenstein
in his understandings of the linguistic field (be-ing for him) comes close
to Heidegger… And most of the practitioners of techno-logic have failed to
take notice of the limits as well as the power of such techno-logics, and
thus have created pure fantasies but without Wittgenstein’s ironic wit and
Heidegger’s self-questioning.

Just a thought.

regards

michaelP

> Schizo-Epistemology: Of Pronouns and Reality Types
>
> Professor Crifasi,
>
> one of your crucial claims seems to be that the proposition ‘I remain
> self-identical throughout all my perceptions’ is a necessary condition
> of existence.
>
> this proposition may be symbolized, as follows:
>
> [1]: P -> Q
>
> where
>
> P = ‘I exist’ [where ‘I exist’ = ‘I am not nothing’]
> Q = ‘I remain self-identical throughout all my perceptions’
>
> you also claim that Q is false; so:
>
> [2]: -Q
>

Posted on Sunday, May 11th, 2008 at 6:04 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback