Heidegger

is not holy water that water that is within the self? 75% of our own body is
that of water. To love thyself…to love water…for we as water and other
are holy beings…God ( as god /Gods are whatever) is within, is “god” not
water.. is water the substence of life? well part there of.

what then is water attracted to? is it light and life itself?
is water drawn to the light? yes. and how is it that light reflests itself
on water?
Could it be that being is knowing oneself? and loving water…. know
thyself….
what then is flesh?

j
—– Original Message —–
From:
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:38 PM
Subject: heidegger Digest, Vol 24, Issue 15

> Send heidegger mailing list submissions to
> heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/mailman/listi…
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body ‘help’ to
> heidegger-request at soca.ecu.edu.au
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> heidegger-owner at soca.ecu.edu.au
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than “Re: Contents of heidegger digest…”
>
>
> Today’s Topics:
>
> 1. Re: loose thoughts on physis: on the edge of thinking
> (Anthony Crifasi)
> 2. Iraq economy booming (Anthony Crifasi)
> 3. Re: can someone help me regarding the Catholic religion and
> somespecific ecumenical criteria- a genuine question (Anthony
> Crifasi)
> 4. Re: can someone help me regarding the Catholic religion and
> somespecific ecumenical criteria- a genuine question (joseph downs)
> 5. RE: loose thoughts on physis: on the edge of thinking
> (Bakker, R.B.M. de)
> 6. Re: can someone help me regarding the Catholic religion
> andsomespecific ecumenical criteria- a genuine question
> (Anthony Crifasi)
>
>
> ———————————————————————-
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:58:22 -0600
> From: “Anthony Crifasi”
> Subject: Re: loose thoughts on physis: on the edge of thinking
> To: “Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger”
>
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=”iso-8859-1″;
> reply-type=original
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: “Bakker, R.B.M. de”
>
>
> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> Van: heidegger-bounces at soca.ecu.edu.au
> [mailto:heidegger-bounces@soca.ecu.edu.au]Namens Anthony Crifasi
>
>
> Aristotle himself directly opposed physis to the theory of inertia:
>
> “no movement can continue to infinity. For what cannot be can no more
> come-to-be than be, and movement is a coming-to-be in one place from
> another.” (On the Heavens 311b29-34)
>
> That is why physis became no more.
>
>
> Anthony, trees still root in the ground and grow upwards - against
> the scientific truth you bring against Physics.
>
> And moreover: Greek physis and aletheia collapsed long before
> Galilei,
> to make place for natura and rectitudo.
>
> (it is essential not to hear a word like ‘collapsed’ mere
> negatively)
>
> =======================
> First, both natura and physis are opposed to inertia - not by me, but by
> both Aristotle and the medievals themselves. That’s not my doing - read
> their own words (such as the quote above). So whatever distinction there
> is
> between natura and physis makes no difference here - they are identical in
> that regard … which in turn should make you question the supposed gap
> between physis and natura. Philosophers often exaggerate differences in
> the
> history of philosophy at the expense of similarities in order to support
> their pet theories - or agendas.
>
> Secondly, as if the moderns could not easily account for why trees root in
> the ground and grow upwards, which is precisely why physis became no
> more -
> modern physics could account for all that physis could account for, and
> more. And if you think that this principle of efficiency is in turn a
> modern
> invention, think again:
>
> “The next question is whether the principles are two or three or more in
> number. One they cannot be, for there cannot be one contrary. Nor can they
> be innumerable, because, if so, Being will not be knowable: and in any one
> genus there is only one contrariety, and substance is one genus: also a
> finite number is sufficient, and a finite number, such as the principles
> of
> Empedocles, is better than an infinite multitude; for Empedocles professes
> to obtain from his principles all that Anaxagoras obtains from his
> innumerable principles.” (Aristotle, Physics I.6)
> =======================
>
>
> btw how come that leaders, as long as they are ‘leading’, denie
> nature,
> and as soon as they are leader-off, turn into their dedicated
> champions?
> Adducing Poetin or Hu won’t help, because then we see the whole
> deceptive
> circle repeating itself in that other area: history. In order to
> understand
> the essential lying effective in every area today, it is necessary
> to go
> back to the distinction first made explicit by Aristotle (and then
> to the
> pre-Aristoteleans).
>
> Or: physics will reign absolutely over a physis-less world. (as
> Heidegger
> pointed out, a physics without nature can only become destructive.)
>
>
> ——————————
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:59:13 -0600
> From: “Anthony Crifasi”
> Subject: Iraq economy booming
> To: “Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger”
>
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=”iso-8859-1″;
> reply-type=response
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/sit…
>
> Excerpts:
>
> Civil war or not, Iraq has an economy, and-mother of all surprises-it’s
> doing remarkably well. Real estate is booming. Construction, retail and
> wholesale trade sectors are healthy, too, according to a report by Global
> Insight in London. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports 34,000 registered
> companies in Iraq, up from 8,000 three years ago. Sales of secondhand
> cars,
> televisions and mobile phones have all risen sharply. Estimates vary, but
> one from Global Insight puts GDP growth at 17 percent last year and
> projects
> 13 percent for 2006. The World Bank has it lower: at 4 percent this year.
> But, given all the attention paid to deteriorating security, the startling
> fact is that Iraq is growing at all.
> …
> Even so, there’s a vibrancy at the grass roots that is invisible in most
> international coverage of Iraq. Partly it’s the trickle-down effect.
> However
> it’s spent, whether on security or something else, money circulates. Nor
> are
> ordinary Iraqis themselves short on cash. After so many years of living
> under sanctions, with little to consume, many built up considerable nest
> eggs-which they are now spending. That’s boosted economic activity,
> particularly in retail. Imported goods have grown increasingly affordable,
> thanks to the elimination of tariffs and trade barriers. Salaries have
> gone
> up more than 100 percent since the fall of Saddam, and income-tax cuts
> (from
> 45 percent to just 15 percent) have put more cash in Iraqi pockets. “The
> U.S. wanted to create the conditions in which small-scale private
> enterprise
> could blossom,” says Jan Randolph, head of sovereign risk at Global
> Insight.
> “In a sense, they’ve succeeded.”
> …
> Consider some less formal indicators. Perhaps the most pervasive is the
> horrendous Iraqi traffic jams. Roadside bombs account for fewer backups
> than
> the sheer number of secondhand cars that have crowded onto the nation’s
> roads-five times as many in Baghdad as before the war. Cheap Chinese goods
> overflow from shop shelves, and store owners report quick turnover.
> Real-estate prices have risen several hundred percent, suggesting that
> Iraqis are more optimistic about the future than most Americans are.
>
>
> ——————————
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 23:32:46 -0600
> From: “Anthony Crifasi”
> Subject: Re: can someone help me regarding the Catholic religion and
> somespecific ecumenical criteria- a genuine question
> To: “Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger”
>
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=”iso-8859-1″;
> reply-type=original
>
> Finally the list is working again.
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: “Peter King”
>
>
>> Can one of you guys help me regarding Catholicism. My question concerns
>> holy
>> water. What is holy water? Can anyone just have some holy water-like can
>> you
>> buy the genuine article over the counter. Will a priest just give you
>> some
>> if you ask.
>
> Yes.
>
>> Say if you had to steal it would it still be technically holy
>> water? If for some reason you had to boil it would it still be ‘holy’.
>> What
>> are the exact rules regarding the creation of and dissolution of holy
>> water?
>
> The following link is to a question along the same lines, and the response
> from a priest is, I believe, the best one.
>
> http://ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp…
>
>
> ——————————
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:41:51 -0800 (PST)
> From: joseph downs
> Subject: Re: can someone help me regarding the Catholic religion and
> somespecific ecumenical criteria- a genuine question
> To: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
>
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”iso-8859-1″
>
> Dear Crifasi:
>
> Yes, Holy Water! I manufacture Holy Water. Mine is the holiest. I have
> a new company in Baghdad which manufactures and distributes HW. Mr. Bush
> may not have succeeded in bringing Macdonald’s to Iraq, but we have a HW
> outlet there. Now I know you probably don’t want to buy any HW, but I’m
> offering a deal on as yet unlisted HW securities. You might say I am
> doing a dry run on Holy Water securities. We’ll never be washed up or dry
> gulched. Our HW prospects are not about to be rained out. Flush out your
> pocketbook, roll up your sleeves, jump in. The water’s fine.
>
> JD
>
> Anthony Crifasi wrote:
> Finally the list is working again.
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: “Peter King”
>
>
>
>> Can one of you guys help me regarding Catholicism. My question concerns
>> holy
>> water. What is holy water? Can anyone just have some holy water-like can
>> you
>> buy the genuine article over the counter. Will a priest just give you
>> some
>> if you ask.
>
> Yes.
>
>> Say if you had to steal it would it still be technically holy
>> water? If for some reason you had to boil it would it still be ‘holy’.
>> What
>> are the exact rules regarding the creation of and dissolution of holy
>> water?
>
> The following link is to a question along the same lines, and the response
> from a priest is, I believe, the best one.
>
> http://ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp…
>
> _______________________________________________
> heidegger mailing list
> heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
> http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/mailman/listi…
> http://heidegger.an-archos.com/
>
> ————– next part ————–
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed…
> URL:
> http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/pipermail/hei…
>
> ——————————
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:33:27 +0100
> From: “Bakker, R.B.M. de”
> Subject: RE: loose thoughts on physis: on the edge of thinking
> To: “Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger”
>
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”iso-8859-1″
>
>
>
> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> Van: heidegger-bounces at soca.ecu.edu.au
> [mailto:heidegger-bounces@soca.ecu.edu.au]Namens Anthony Crifasi
> Verzonden: dinsdag 19 december 2006 16:11
> Aan: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
> Onderwerp: Re: loose thoughts on physis: on the edge of thinking
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: “Bakker, R.B.M. de”
>
>
> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> Van: heidegger-bounces at soca.ecu.edu.au
> [mailto:heidegger-bounces@soca.ecu.edu.au]Namens Anthony Crifasi
>
>
> Aristotle himself directly opposed physis to the theory of inertia:
>
> “no movement can continue to infinity. For what cannot be can no more
> come-to-be than be, and movement is a coming-to-be in one place from
> another.” (On the Heavens 311b29-34)
>
> That is why physis became no more.
>
>
> Anthony, trees still root in the ground and grow upwards - against
> the scientific truth you bring against Physics.
>
> And moreover: Greek physis and aletheia collapsed long before
> Galilei,
> to make place for natura and rectitudo.
>
> (it is essential not to hear a word like ‘collapsed’ mere
> negatively)
>
> =======================
> First, both natura and physis are opposed to inertia - not by me, but by
> both Aristotle and the medievals themselves. That’s not my doing - read
> their own words (such as the quote above). So whatever distinction there
> is
> between natura and physis makes no difference here - they are identical in
> that regard … which in turn should make you question the supposed gap
> between physis and natura. Philosophers often exaggerate differences in
> the
> history of philosophy at the expense of similarities in order to support
> their pet theories - or agendas.
>
> Secondly, as if the moderns could not easily account for why trees root in
> the ground and grow upwards, which is precisely why physis became no
> more -
>
>
> —
> What does it mean, ultimately, that physis is no more? No more
> being-of-itself,
> only makability, techne in an exclusive sense: not the techne of
> Aristotle,
> which is opposed to and given its place in relation to (dependence on0
> physis.
>
> Vom Wesen und Begriff der physis, on this relation on account of the
> doctor
> healing/recovering:
>
> “Being-a-doctor is not the disposing issuance [arche] of the recovery,
> but being-man and this only insofar as man is a zoion, living, which
> only lives, while it ‘bellies’.” (lebt, indem es ‘leibt’)
>
> The disappearing of physis touches plants, animals, but also the being,
> which man is himself. Heidegger foresees in 1942 the selfproduction
> of man as the inevitable consequence of unbounded technology.
> Your enthusiasm for the civil war in Iraq as booming economy dwells in
> the
> same dimension, where the living and dying of men is a mere economic
> factor.
> But by doing that you also destroy your own criteria re truth-falsity,
> and
> with them the possible meaning of anything you write and say. (one
> could
> interpret the suppression of all traces of subjectivity in your writing
> in that vein.)
>
> For those *reading* Heidegger: in the Physik piece Heidegger sees the
> last
> consequence of the vanishing of physis as subjectivity blowing itself
> up.
> —
>
>
> - modern physics could account for all that physis could account for, and
> more. And if you think that this principle of efficiency is in turn a
> modern
> invention, think again:
>
> “The next question is whether the principles are two or three or more in
> number. One they cannot be, for there cannot be one contrary. Nor can they
> be innumerable, because, if so, Being will not be knowable: and in any one
> genus there is only one contrariety, and substance is one genus: also a
> finite number is sufficient, and a finite number, such as the principles
> of
> Empedocles, is better than an infinite multitude; for Empedocles professes
> to obtain from his principles all that Anaxagoras obtains from his
> innumerable principles.” (Aristotle, Physics I.6)
> =======================
>
> Efficiency cannot, of course, be the criterium, Being is.
> Archai, argues Aristotle in book A, make sense only if there is
> something
> of which they are the principle. And this something is precisely
> that which must occur (’hypokeisthoo’, Vorliegen). And that again
> is what physis is doing, being-of-itself.
> Without this (metaphysical) structure, talk of archai makes no sense.
> The question for the number of archai is posed within this context, and
> not with respect to a medieval (Ockham), or even modern notion of
> efficiency.
>
> The other way around can be seen that physis as occurring of itself
> has retreated in medieval philosophy, where creation is the reason
> for the being of everything, and even further out of sight since
> Galilei
> and Descartes, where it is the ponere by the subjectum, which makes
> things
> be what they are. Mere efficiency only appears when even no
> subjectivity is
> needed anymore.
>
>
>
>
>
> btw how come that leaders, as long as they are ‘leading’, denie
> nature, and as soon as they are leader-off, turn into their
> dedicated champions? Adducing Poetin or Hu won’t help, because then
> we see the whole deceptive circle repeating itself in that other
> area:
> history. In order to understand the essential lying effective in
> every
> area today, it is necessary to go back to the distinction first
> made
> explicit by Aristotle (and then to the pre-Aristoteleans).
> Or: physics will reign absolutely over a physis-less world. (as
> Heidegger pointed out, a physics without nature can only become
> destructive.)
>
>
>
> And another example, recently in the news here: young Chinese farmers
> have
> left their villages, in order to play video-games all day/night, making
> them fit
> for the Western market. The dissolution of physical/metaphysical
> reality
> into virtual reality cannot be stopped, but more terrible than even
> that is the unability and unwill to notice it. It namely leaves out a
> factor,
> which cannot be left out, except by self-elimination. Even more
> worrying: not
> even by that.
>
> rene
>
>
> rene
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> heidegger mailing list
> heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
> http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/mailman/listi…
> http://heidegger.an-archos.com/
>
> ——————————
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:26:31 -0600
> From: “Anthony Crifasi”
> Subject: Re: can someone help me regarding the Catholic religion
> andsomespecific ecumenical criteria- a genuine question
> To: “Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger”
>
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”iso-8859-1″
>
> When the discussions here turn to religions like Buddhism or Islam, the
> issue becomes the phenomenology of “sacrality” and other such appropriate
> philosophical analyses. But when it is Christianity, mockery is apparently
> in order. Part of the philosophical demand to “Know Thyself!” means
> examining personal animosities which manifest as double standards.
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: joseph downs
> To: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 12:41 AM
> Subject: Re: can someone help me regarding the Catholic religion
> andsomespecific ecumenical criteria- a genuine question
>
>
> Dear Crifasi:
>
> Yes, Holy Water! I manufacture Holy Water. Mine is the holiest. I have
> a new company in Baghdad which manufactures and distributes HW. Mr. Bush
> may not have succeeded in bringing Macdonald’s to Iraq, but we have a HW
> outlet there. Now I know you probably don’t want to buy any HW, but I’m
> offering a deal on as yet unlisted HW securities. You might say I am
> doing a dry run on Holy Water securities. We’ll never be washed up or dry
> gulched. Our HW prospects are not about to be rained out. Flush out your
> pocketbook, roll up your sleeves, jump in. The water’s fine.
>
> JD
>
> Anthony Crifasi wrote:
> Finally the list is working again.
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: “Peter King”
>
>
> > Can one of you guys help me regarding Catholicism. My question
> concerns
> > holy
> > water. What is holy water? Can anyone just have some holy water-like
> can
> > you
> > buy the genuine article over the counter. Will a priest just give you
> some
> > if you ask.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Say if you had to steal it would it still be technically holy
> > water? If for some reason you had to boil it would it still be
> ‘holy’.
> > What
> > are the exact rules regarding the creation of and dissolution of holy
> > water?
>
> The following link is to a question along the same lines, and the
> response
> from a priest is, I believe, the best one.
>
>
> http://ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp…
>
> _______________________________________________
> heidegger mailing list
> heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
>  http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/mailman/listi…
>  http://heidegger.an-archos.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> ——————————————————————————
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> heidegger mailing list
> heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
>  http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/mailman/listi…
>  http://heidegger.an-archos.com/
> ————– next part ————–
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed…
> URL:
> http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/pipermail/hei…
>
> ——————————
>
> _______________________________________________
> heidegger mailing list
> heidegger at soca.ecu.edu.au
> http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/mailman/listi…
>
>
> End of heidegger Digest, Vol 24, Issue 15
> *****************************************
>

Posted on Thursday, December 21st, 2006 at 3:20 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback