Heidegger

In article , GEVANS613 at aol.com writes
>
>
>In a message dated 28/09/2006 21:12:23 GMT Standard Time, phil at thalasson.com
>writes:
>
>In article _GEVANS613 at aol.com_ (mailto:GEVANS613@aol.com) writes how does
>this modern misunderstanding arise? I suggest here that it is because people
>confuse the apparently obvious phenomenological EXISTENCE of the abstraction
>’pain,’ with ‘that which ACTUALLY EXISTS
>
>There is no confusion. People are concerned with the everyday reality of
>pain - what you call its *obvious phenomenological existence.* They are not
>interested in your ontological theorising which is useless in the presence of
>everyday reality.
>
>Jud Evans
>As a folk ontologist I appreciate that you obviously speak for your own kind
>whose outlook you represent. I do not relate to the lumpen, Gorkyesque
>lower-depths version of the folk ontologists, and neither do I care a flying
>fart
>for WHAT they think, though I find the more intelligent, quick-witted folk
>ontologists interesting. My intention is NOT TO CLAIM that such traumatised
>people do not experience distress - and I am NOT ADDRESSING THEM anyway - I am
>addressing the ontological question which the mangel-wurzel munching Bormann
>of *Being* Heidegger failed to explore - what exists and what does not exist.
>
>As usual you have TOTALLY MISUNDERSTOOD my deliberately chosen
>tongue-in-cheek *come-on* phrase: *obvious phenomenological existence,’ [of
>pain] which is
>my satirical version of your: *everyday reality of pain,* for any one on the
>list with half a brain could spot it IMMEDIATELY as a classical EXAMPLE of
>the well known British use of irony. Most would not have been taken in by it,
>and could rush to point out to you at once that I do not even believe in or
>accept that either *existence* or *phenomena* exists.
>
>I was using the term to take the piss out of the naive brainwashed ontofolk
>- *ontofolk* being an expression used in my university [and I have heard the
>term employed in Manchester University too] to refer to the not-very-bright,
>uneducated, skinhead version or [as the Americans would say] the trailer-park
>variant of the more educated old fashioned folk ontologists.
>
>There is always somebody for whom the penny does not drop very quickly, and
>sadly yet again you rose lazily and half-consciously through the murky
>melt-water of your metaphysics to the swizzle-bait which you took like a tired
>old
>trout, uncertain any more as to even which way the dialogic current is
>flowing these days in the deterministic River of No Return.
>

Perhaps all your posts are a systematic exercise in irony. That would
explain a lot.
–
Philip Baker

Posted on Thursday, September 28th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback