Heidegger

In a message dated 26/10/2008 _jPolanik at nc.rr.com_
(mailto:jPolanik@nc.rr.com) writes:

Joe:
Who is Claiming that the Senses don’t Exist?

[Jud]: (earlier) Your above form of words suggests that you believe that
there exists a physical phenomenon (an experience) which is ontologically
different from the experiencer.

Kindly explain:

1. What form of existence do the *senses* have, as opposed to the physical
sensors?

Joe:
you introduced the phrase ‘the senses’ into the above exchange; so, why not
tell us how you are using it; and, similarly for 2 and 4.

Jud:
I introduce a word that has a coinage for you - not me - I refute that the
*senses exist at all - the ball is in the claimant’s (your) court.

Joe:
okay, so after you define phenomenon as “any state or process known through
the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning” you claim that the senses
don’t exist.

if that’s your claim then you are the claimant.

Jud:
Don’t try your question avoidance techniques on me Joe. You know very well
that is not my claim - I merely cite the usual dictionary definition which
provides the generally accepted trannie definition. It is not within the purview
or range of interest of the neurologically active unbeliever to prove the
non-existence of an abstraction. It is the responsibility of the
transcendentalist, the astrologer, the clairvoyant, the foam-sputtering ranting preacher,
the Heideggerian fantasist, the Hitlerite racialist who claims that the
abstractive, invisible absurdities that pepper their discourse exist as:
*conceptual instantiations of the mind* to prove their claims, and at the same time
prove that the juvenile concept of *mind* exists.

There IS NO scientific elimino-reductionist definition of *the senses* as
used in non-scientific transcendentalist ontological discourse, for how can one
define something that does not exist? One’s only definitional recourse is to
address the brain of the discussant who believes that there is such a thing
as *the senses.*

The question for you to answer therefore remains: Do you believe that *the
senses* actually exist as supplementary, *mental components or features* which
in addition to the ontic sensors add to, or improve, or are essential for
the capability of the feeling human entity to sense its internal processes and
external environment?

As Voltaire said:
*Faith is an effort on the part of the will to believe in something for
which there is no evidence - for if there WAS evidence there would be no need for
faith.*

Therefore all that an eliminativist can say about the non-denotational word
used by faith-based philosophy: *senses* is something like the following:

*The term: *the senses* refers to a psycho-inguistic feature of certain
people’s neurologically conditioned brains resulting in a belief that a
reification exists they call: *the senses, * which exist (metaphysically) in addition
to the observed changing sensorial matergy. The reification: *the senses* is
also believed by such people to be able to become aware through the senses of
a whole compendium of other reifications including such abstractions as:
*pain* or *qualia* in the form of (say) tinnitus, which they believe exists in
addition to the damaged ear drum, the infected sinus, the high cholesterol,
the heavy metal poisoning, jaw misalignment problems or excessive ear wax.
This curious belief seems to indicate that if the abstraction *the senses* were
absent then the sensors would not be able to detect the sensorial
impingements that bear upon them visually, tactually, olfactorily, aurally and
gustatively. This bizarre transcendental belief is perhaps similar to a belief that if
the abstraction *beauty* was missing from a female body - the female
concerned could not be considered *beautiful.*

There two basic ways that a non denotative expression may be applied to a
non-ontic, non-referential lexemes, such as *experience, qualia, reality the
senses* and the rest of the long list of non-existent abstraction.

1) The religio-emotional or transcendo-connotative sense of a word expresses
the ontological attitude of the speaker to what is being referred to,
depending upon the its appropriateness when set against the particular
religio-transcendo: *reality-disconnect* and conceptual meaning of the word with which he
or she has been socially programmed.

For the eliminativist such non-denotative expressions are employed purely
instrumentally for purposes of ease of communication and in order to avoid the
necessary paraphrastic and circumlocutory expressions involved in constantly
denying any existential dimension to such non-objects and are unencumbered by
any ontological implications whatsoever.

I am interested in examining in more detail, as Antonio has been doing, the
psychological childhood well-springs of such a faith in nonexistent phantoms
like:

*reality, soul, senses, experience, pain, mind* and the rest of the
reificata in the conceptual catalogue of the modern trannie. It is interesting to
speculate whether the same forms of psychotherapy employed by the clinicians
concerned with deprogramming the sad victims of religio-cultic and political
brainwashing and mind control would be helpful in the disabusal and
de-programming of trannies of the phantasmagorias and internal representations with which
they are obsessed.

I predict that if the evil *reality-disconnect* of the current
religio-trannie menace to humanity it not educatively addressed seriously soon, then the
present situation of hate-filled inter-trannie instability, mutual mass
murder and socio-economic reality-disconnectedness will end in the complete
eradication of humankind altogether with all of the spurious Heideggerian
hocus-pocus and similar Alice-in- Wonderland worldviews with it from the face of the
planet.

Jud.

Posted on Sunday, November 2nd, 2008 at 7:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback