Heidegger

In a message dated 08/10/2008 07:20:30 GMT Standard Time,
_michael at sandwich-de-sign.co.uk_ (mailto:michael@sandwich-de-sign.co.uk) writes:

[BTW, “Being” {for Heidegger} is not “within {or without} the human” since
it is not a being, not some thing; and (a) “being” is anything that can be said
to be at all {for Heidegger} — just to get your “Heideggerian jargon” at
least proximally in the right ball park]

So, if we don’t ask the ‘one-or-two-being’ question and instead (since this
is a Heidegger list) go along for a moment (leaving aside the post-cartesian
question) with a ‘formula’ from Heidegger, roughly: human-being (da-sein) is
the being that puts beings (and thus be-ing) into question, we can immediately
see *that* you, Joe, are a human being, and that ‘formula’ also answers your
question of *what* you are (a being that questions beings {including the
being that you are yourself}).

So Joe, is that not a good starting point that avoids (at least,
momentarily) the post-cartesian problematic of the body as something wholly or partially
identifiable with the human being?

Jud:
Joe do not be mislead by the above crude apologetics to *magic away* a
pernicious symptom of the psychopathic personality disorder -( which came to a
head with his entry into an asylum) - the Heideggerian dualism of *Being.*
Although the Heidegger crap does not claim that the gerund *Being* exists in
the material sense (i. e., as an object or matergy) the Heideggerian system
remains a ‘one-or-two-question of a physical being and a conceptually
instantiated invisible dualism (the *Presence* or *Existence* or *Being* of the
being) they still address it as if it did.

Furthermore they have quasi-existentialised it as the *Being* of a typical
human (of the type who constantly reminds himself he is going to die - that he
is *comporting towards death) as *Dasein.* Dasein is a verbal noun, or
perhaps *verbal phrase,* for it is constituted of two words. Such a linguistic unit
is usually called a gerund, (yes, I know that you already know that - but
some here do not) which, because it has no definite nominatum (it does not
refer to a particular Heideggerian nut) so one of the faithful will
self-referentially apply the reification to himself.

In other words he will reify a part of Heidegger’s speech as HIMSELF. Thus
when one of these nuts reads a passage by Heidegger which says: *Dasein thinks
this… or Dasein does this etc., they identify with the idea of Dasein and
assume the metaphysical mantle of Dasein and fantasise that THEY ARE DASEIN
and that the Nazi’s words apply to them - that the would-be personal
philosopher to Hitler is speaking to them and of them.

The same thing happened with an earlier transcendentalist allegory told by
a dreamer, much like certain medieval poems (Pearl is the clearest example)
John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress to which the Daseinic device bears such an
uncanny resemblance to its seventeenth century religious progenitor
*Christian,* which is a reified version of *The Universal Christian Man* as he
comports himself towards death and a joyful union with God. Christian (Dasein)
like Heidegger has gone mad and escape the City of Destruction. (post WW.1
Germany.)
On the advice of Evangelist (his mentor Husserl) he begins a journey through
a series of allegorical places: the Slough of Despond (angst), the House
Beautiful, (A future Volk paradise) the Valley of Humiliation,(The Versailles
Treaty) the Valley of the Shadow of Death, (the terrible winter of Vanity
Fair, (the American abandonment of Being) and so on to the Celestial City
Berlin reborn as Rome.

Each character and place in Bunyan’s prescient, crude seventeenth century
version of Being and Time is given an appropriate name. In a similar
fashion Heidegger reifies every abstract noun in sight, so *Christian* (Dasein)
meets the goodly Hopeful and Faithful, the cheating Mr Legality and the evil
Giant Despair, similar personifications and metaphors of which are to be found
in B & T. Both formats are not unlike that of Spenser’s The Faerie
Queene in the sense of a divinely inspired journey (comportment) - one towards a
Celestial Heavenly Christian City - the other, a return in the form of a
sacred movement to bring about a return of the Greek Incipience - a volkish
Black Forest-like paradise where the guttural discordances of the German
tongue rings through the forest *clearings* as the lingual successor of Hellas.

Of course schizophrenically, (as an alcoholic adopts deflection strategies)
they protest that the Nazi is not ALWAYS talking to them, or representing
them via his own version of the Daseinic Everyman. When Heidegger reveals the
TRUE HEIDEGGERIAN VOLKISH FACE OF DASEIN (Heidegger’s personal, right wing or
outright Nazi version of his own conception of Dasein) the Heideggerian hoi
polloi will whimper that such calls for the elimination of the Jews, demands
for the key to the Freiburg University library from his kindly, harmless old
fool of a mentor Husserl., or shouts of *Follow the Fuehrer!* and Nazi
marching songs printed on University Literature at the institutions expense (as he
did.) can be detached from the small time English or American town version of
a gentlemanly, umbrella clutching or gum-chewing version that they have
interiorised in Being and Time, Basic Concepts and the other dualistic rubbish in
which the transcendental, invisible, experiential presence of the gerund
Dasein (and the hordes of *stupid non-Daseins) *Being* has replaced the
transcendental invisible *God* and the abstraction *life* or the experience of
existing there/here in the world has been replaced with the metaphysical manikin
Dasein which is clutched by the angst-brigade as a fetish which they represent
as themselves.

In other words they pick and choose which aspects of the late twenties
German model of Dasein which is represented by Heidegger to be a universal
model, and think that they can apply such a putative persona to themselves
without taking on board the full implications of all the rest of Heidegger’s
Hitlerite, residual Jesuit and well known Black Forest anti-Jewish megalomania,
with which the young Heidegger was infected as a youth. For Jewish
Heideggerians this means becoming apologists - the ultimate anti-Semites, not only (via
their worship of Heidegger) as *vindicators by pretermission* for the Nazi
treatment of the Jews, but also (via Heidegger’s rabid right-wing ant-Semitic
Catholicism) for the long term historical Catholic genocide of the Jews too,
which at this very moment the Pope and the Chief Rabbi are trying to heal
when the Jewish holy man addresses the next Vatican Council (the first Jew to
be invited to do so.

For Heideggerian Jews the holocaust is hardly mentioned, and Heidegger’s
political activities are played down and his call for the elimination of the
Jews (by a respected Jewish academic) is either ignored, or cynically scoffed
at as part of the researcher’s imagination.

Now with regard to providing an answer to your constantly reoccurring plea
to be told what you are. You can if you wish take Georges Metanomski’s quite
sensible suggestion that you go and ask a psychiatrist. Alternatively it
would be a good idea if you told all the members of the various lists of which
you are a member WHAT YOU THINK THAT YOU ARE and then they will no doubt
compassionately, either agree with your self-estimation or they will not.
Provide us with the information, ask a straight question, we are all here to
help you, and I am sure that we can save you the huge fee that you will
have to pay if you go to a psychiatrist and pay to be told what they think that
you want to be told.

Better still consult Antonio Rossin who is a REAL (genuine) psychologist
who still remembers swearing his Hippocratic Oath and will tell you truthfully
the way he sees your problem and what, if anything, can be done to treat it.

Jud

Posted on Sunday, October 12th, 2008 at 6:03 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback