Heidegger

GEVANS613 at aol.com wrote:

>jPolanik@nc.rr.com writes:

>GEVANS613@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
>>It is the basis for the well-represented PIE word *bheu-, which is
>>now thought to mean: /’be somewhere’,/

>as usual, the etymological information you provide is fascinating; 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 … 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.

an underappreciated point, to be sure.

I understand that exist is not etymologically related to esse (to be);
and, comes from ek + sistere giving it the etymological meaning to stand
apart (from nothingness) — extremely interesting in that the meaning
of the root predicate (derived from the _logos_) is ‘is not a member of
the empty set’. thus, for any x that is (est), x is not a member of the
empty set — it stands apart from nothingness.

as with the root predicate, ek + sistere does not indicate what x stands
apart *as*. currently most people, including yourself, assume that
nothing stands apart from nothingness except as a physical object; but,
it’s not entirely clear to me that this is what the people of antiquity
supposed — and, after all, its their word.

it would be interesting to compare the etymology of ‘exist’ in relation
to ‘ecstacy’ — ‘ek’ + ’stasis’. again, the literal meaning of standing
apart from nothingness is evident; but, ecstasy also connotes a sort of
mystical trance state or mystical transport state where it means to
stand outside one’s self (body). so in that context ek + stasis means to
stand apart — as a non-physical entity.

it is no wonder that these words got confused.

>Joe: I’ve previously described two situations in which one might want
>to assert the CPI. 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.)

I disagree. it’s been my experience that those who believe that the
human individual is a composite entity identify with one component or
the other or with the composite as a whole. they would do this for one
of two reasons: to specify which component is ‘driving’ the
conversation; or, to indicate which component is the ‘real’ one — the
true self, as it were.

this creates a problem because, in vernacular english, these three
viewpoints have to share a single pronoun, ‘I’. however, it is possible
to speak more precisely by using the subscripted pronouns I’ve mentioned
before (I-1, I-2 and I-3) together with I-0 which is the symbol I use
for one entire human individual irregardless of internal structure.

in any event, the point is that someone might not want to say either
‘I-3 am a Soul’ OR ‘I-1 am a group of neurons’ because he or she didn’t
know which (if either) was a true statement.

so, if it is possible for a person to be aware of not knowing the
structure of a human individual; then, it is necessary for the language
within which philosophical discourse takes place to allow someone to say
‘I know that I am; but, not what I am’.

>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?*

so, you admit that people who are confused ask ‘who am I?’; but, you
object when someone advocates asking a better question.

>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. … The intelligent
>ones already know that A human being WAS ‘NT anything more than a
>ideating embrained human body ANYWAY.

nobody? here, let me perform a refutation before your very eyes: I
question the alleged fact that a human individual is nothing more than a
human body.

>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 — a
>double plus ungood result.

Joe

–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
 http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@

Posted on Sunday, December 16th, 2007 at 1:15 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback