Heidegger

In a message dated 09/07/2007 13:45:42 GMT Standard Time,
michael at sandwich-de-sign.co.uk writes:

>> > In a message dated 06/07/2007 04:35:46 GMT Standard Time, Bernx at aol.com
>>writes:
>>> In a message dated 7/5/2007 6:19:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>>GEVANS613@aol.com writes:
>>> Reveal the name of your authority,
>>> It has already been self-revealed as the Logos.
>>> B.
>>>
>>> Jud:
>>> Logos is merely the ancient Greek for *word.* Of course all kinds of
>>> religious nuts and other loonies have crawled out of the wanker-infested
>>> woodwork to claim that THEIR particular version of the *logos*
represents
>>> the import of the word. From snake-handlers to paraquat guzzlers, from
>>> pederast priests, to TV evangelist adulterous conmen, from Mystic Meg,
to
>>> conjuring spoon-benders, from Catholic torturers to Protestant gunmen -
>>> they ALL claim that the *logos* represents their particular crackpot
>>interpretation.

mP:
>>Now, Jud, I don’t wanna get involved in your whambam discussion with BernX,
>>but I feel the need to point something out: whatever the rich number of
>>resonances and interpretations the greek logos word has thrown up in the
>>past few millennia, one absolutely can not say that “it is merely the
>>ancient Greek for *word.*”. In some cases, of course, it can be so
>>interpreted, but to say “merely” as if that said anything thoughtful…

Allen:
> Hi Michael,
>
> I love exploring “merely’s,” (Remember I come from “merely rhetoric),
> so thanks for the opportunity.
>
> MERELY a WORD!? My word! Being a word, a word wording, is the most
> extraordinary event since photosynthesis. A word means, it asserts,
> it reasons, it lays out, opines, it states, it promises, just to name
> a few of its ways of being. As a matter of fact, if you know
> anything about barley, you process it amongst other beans in brewing
> chicken broth, and in half a day, you have a word. So don’t talk to
> me about mysticism. Of course, these are the very same possibilities
> of being that accrue to “logos.” It’s not so much that the Greeks
> were smart, so much as good cooks.
>
> Best regards,

Firstly, to BernX: interesting stuff but (perhaps mistakenly, psychedelic
soup, ummmhhh) I was not so much interested in the krithi part of
krithilogos as the logos part, which surely would make little sense if its
meaning were restricted to Jud’s “merely” “word” (we would then have
krithilogos meaning ‘barley-word’ or somesuch instead of Plutarch’s and
Harrison’s ‘barley-gatherer’ for the one (krithilogos) who brings in the
barley for the rituals.

Secondly to Jud: Like Allen, I cannot but shrink from your “merely”
(although it does point to the way the extraordinary can, in some hands,
become less than mundane),
Jud:
But that is exactly the point Michael - the whole of the transcendental —
analytic schism concerns
what one side considers being meaningful or profound, and the other side
depreciating as *merely* something of less import, or referring to an entirely
different meaning of the word.

The semantic role of words like: *merely, simply, nor more than* etc. are to
signal that what a certain person
considers important by singling out and seizing upon a certain nuance of
those available, or perceived implication of a word, is
*over the top* and they should reconsider whether:

(A) They are attributing more semantic *weight* to the word in order to fit
in with their own agenda.
(B) That they have selected the correct nuance of the word, which best fits
its original meaning in the particular
case in which it was used - irrespective of how they themselves would prefer
it to mean.

A good example of this is Heidegger’s disgraceful high-jacking of Greek
texts to fit them in with his crackpot *Being* reification.

The word *logos* is a good example of Judaeo-Christian high-jacking, for the
meanings of the word [which include the later Christian wishful-thinkingness
and unthinkingness themed add-ons, bolted on to the original Greek meaning
(the Greeks coined this word before Jesus was even a twinkle in God’s
malignant eyes] meander over a wide semantic area of meanings such as:

*A word, a command, a promise, a precept, a speech, a common saying or
proverb, a report, eloquence, power of speech, reason, an account, a pretence, and
after that may be the subject of conversation etc.

There are many choices available depending upon one’s point of view and what
particular religious or non-religious, reificationalist or
anti-reificationalist axe one has to grind. (I would go for *pretence* myself ]

Michael:

but I think you missed my main concern (which was
not whether the result of painstaking or otherwise scholarliness — I am not
a scholar or a philosopher — was correct or not concerning the origins and
meanings of the word, the mere word, logos, but with the narrowing of its
multiple resonances to a singular taken-for-granted (”merely”) “word”,
“merely” the word for word. I utilised the Harrison text in order to
demonstrate that it could subtend the angle of ‘gather’, ‘collect’,
‘assemble’, etc, as well as those connected with linguisticality (word,
saying, account, etc), and could perhaps enable a debate concerning that
connection (gather, et al) with the other set of meanings (reason, ground,
thought, etc).
Jud:
But narrowing it down to point to some singular taken-for-granted meaning is
EXACTLY what the Christians and Jews do.
They insist that it refers to God or his son’s appropriation of *logos* to
mean the divine word of some Osama bin Laden look-a-like covert issue of God
and some aged carpenter’s son from the biblical boondocks called Bethlehem..
>From a Christian point of view Allen must support the divinity of the word
of Jesus - because Jesus was his son.

Why Allen, as an otherwise good and gentlemanly Jew, wishes to bolster the
Christain claim about Jesus in this way is a mystery?
Maybe, like Arendt, he has an unconscious, subliminal dislike of his own
religion, for he seems pretty pally with one of its greatest enemies - the
Nazi Nephilim Heidegger?

“And the women became pregnant and gave birth to great giants whose heights
were three hundred cubits. These (giants) consumed the produce of all the
people until the people detested feeding them. So the giants turned against
(the people) in order to eat them.” - 1 Enoch 7:1-5

So did not Heidegger, “the giant of twentieth century philosophy,” wretch -
reach - splurg - (note scare quotes] turn against a section of the people
in order to eat them?”
Regards,

Jud Evans.

Personal Website. http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…

Posted on Monday, July 9th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback