Heidegger

In a message dated 15/12/2007 17:53:12 GMT Standard Time, jPolanik at nc.rr.com
writes:

GEVANS613 at aol.com wrote:

>*For those who know not what they are.*

>The meaning of BE has recently been traced the to Proto Indo- PL P?FA
>[the ? denotes that this morpheme remains unknown] It is the basis for
>the well-represented PIE word *bheu-, which is now thought to mean:
>/’be somewhere’,/ from P?FA-FA, /’be prominent-frequentative’/ = /’be
>customarily noticed at’/ (previously reconstructed from PIE root as
>P?FE-FA, ‘(place of a) pair of feet’.

as usual, the etymological information you provide is fascinating; and,
I will save it for future reference; but, it is irrelevant to the issue
at hand: the validity of the thought expressed in the CPI, ‘I know that
I am; but, not what I am’.
Jud:
The original [very limited] concept of bheu is interesting in that in one
form and another it cascaded down through the sibling languages
of the Great Indo European Language Family, and variations of it can still
be traced [with the usual morphemic changes undergone] more or less wherever
you look in modern languages of the west [with certain well known exceptions.]

Why is it limited? Because in English and some others, it was adopted not
as the stem of a logically operative conjugation, but mixed with other
source words. Subsequently the BE-conjugation is imperfect - OK for street
language and Heideggerian riff-raff, but flawed for ontological purposes.

Worse still, in spite of the Roman attempt to redress the situation with the
introduction of Exist, BE is still used [mainly by the religious and
trannies awkard brigade] because it is ambiguous - [being, being and beings] and
there is nothing that trannies and the God-botherers love more than ambiguity to
hide behind and sulk about the triumphs of science.

Joe:

I’ve previously described two situations in which one might want to
assert the CPI; and, these are worth repeating.

first, someone who as been raised in the teachings of some church might
at some point in his life question those beliefs. for instance, someone
raised to believe ‘I am a Soul’ might question that belief. while in
that state of unknowing, the inquirer may describe that state as ‘I know
that I am; but, not what I am’.
Jud:
The use of the word *soul* is never employed that way. Even the dickheaded
religious and the trannies know that they are not *just* souls or spirits,
the nutters actually believe in a duality [see the cretinous Heidegger] with
his *ontological difference.)
*The ship sank with all souls* did not mean for the faithful that 350
ghosties sank below the surface blowing spirituous bubbles.
People knew they were real sailors and passengers with rotten teeth and
hairy legs.

Your CP1 doesn’t work simply because the question that sick, confused,
concussed, drunk, religiously maniacal, people ask is NOT *What am I?* but WHO am
I?*

If someone DID ever ask such a question, they would be so far gone on drugs
or chemicals that nobody would bother to tell them and they would just be put
in a padded cell [like they did with Heidegger when the allied tanks rolled
into town] and wait for the affects of the solvent, alcohol and drugs abuse to
wear off.

BTW WH THE HELL CARES if some bloody nutty religious maniacs don’t know what
they are - they are hardly human anyway?

Joe:

similarly, someone who has never believed that the human being was
anything more than a human body might come to question that belief.
before finding an answer to the question ‘What am I?’, this inquirer can
make the same claim as the former, ‘I know that I am; but, not what I
am’.

Jud:
There you go again Joe - NOBODY would EVER *question* the fact that he/she
was
anything more than a human body. Even the stupid ones would realize that if
they moved their tongue and words came out that there was something going on
and that they had been through the language learning process and could speak
English and ask questions. The intelligent ones already know that A human
being WAS ‘NT anything more than a ideating embrained human body ANYWAY.

Joe:
our language in which philosophical discourse takes place must provide a
way to express this state of knowing that one does not know; otherwise,
that language begins to resemble orwellian newspeak.
Jud:
There is no problem for a human being expressing the fact that he/she does
not know something.

Traveler: *Excuse me, where is the nearest bank?*
Local: *I am sorry, I do not know,*

Joe:

do you remember newspeak? it was the language invented by the
totalitarian state in _1984_ to prevent rebellion by eliminating the
possibility that rebellious ideas could even be thought of in newspeak.
Jud:
It remains a feature of most western media outlets and hypothyroidistic
politicians that fasten upon us like leeches..

Joe:
similarly, if some philosopher claims that, whenever I say ‘I am’, I
always already know *what* I am; then,

Jud:
Everyone on earth knows who they are, with the exception of the mentally
sick, concussed accident victims, and Alzheimer victims etc.

Your question is a non-philosophical non-question. It hasn’t got legs -
sorry but that is the hard fact of the matter.
If some religious nut really didn’t know what they were and asked you - and
you told them they were a jelly-fish, do you HONESTLY think that they would
believe you? If you answer *yes* or *maybe* then it is you who have problems
- not them, for you would be bending the facts to suit your theory.

Joe:
the CPI becomes a rebellious
thought. if the language of philosophical discourse must either accept
this rebellious thought as a legitimate thought (which might be either
true or false); then, the discourse is being conducted in the
philosophical analogue of newspeak — a double plus ungood result.

Jud:
It is not a *rebellious thought* it is just a irrelevant thought. Contrary
to what you believe, you are not *on to something* I’m afraid.

You have the talent, but it is [at the moment] wrongly focused and
misdirected.

Regards,

Jud
Personal Website:
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
 http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…)
“The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher
esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.”
Nietzsche

Posted on Saturday, December 15th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback