Heidegger

Cologne 27-Sep-2006

GEVANS613 at aol.com schrieb Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:55:48 EDT:

> In a message dated 25/09/2006 11:02:45 GMT Standard Time,
> artefact at t-online.de writes: Cologne 25-Sep-2006 DR. ELDRED:Socrates
> draws uncomfortable conclusions from the Protagorean teaching that
> knowledge and perception are one and the same, i. e. that individual
> perception is the measure for whether and what and how something is:

> :JUD EVANS:Where did all that Protagorean flatus come from? I thought
> they didn’t eat beans? Have you thought that this is mere Greekish
> wordplay and half-grasped proto-pyscho, reificational-rip-off,
> mumbo-jumbo on the part of the Protagoreans? >From what you report
> Protagoras didn’t go far enough into his study of words and their
> correct use (orthoepeia) though I agree with him that knowing
> something (he would say* knowledge,*) is relative to the knower. For
> me the measure of the objects is actually a man-measure of the
> measurer, which I believe he was [rightly] trying to say - but he
> slipped up if your quote of Socrates is correct for that DOES NOT MEAN
> that individual perception is the measure for whether and what and how
> something is: BUT HOW THE MEASURER IS for the unmeasured object does
> not suddenly exist as a *measured* object just because some human has
> laid a measuring-rod over it - it just exists in the unmeasured and
> measureless state in which it exists - in which EVERYTHING
> exists.Actually the true case may be that Protagoras knew what he
> meant, but abstraction-obssessed Socrates put his own confused gloss
> upon it. Of course the abstractions *knowledge and perception* are
> mere mentalisms and do not really exist [a bag of gold in your hot,
> trembling white hand is yours if you send me 5-ounces of *knowledge*
> and half a pound of *perception* and a quarter of mint-humbugs] and it
> is this prime example of the damage that naive folk-reification can
> render on the unwitting ontofolk, which conceals the real, live,
> actual process of neurological knowing and perceiving.What we may ask
> is the *difference* twixt *knowing* and *perceiving?* To perceive is
> to become aware of some entity/entities through the sensors and to
> *know* about some entity/entities is also to become aware of some
> entity/entities through the sensors. *Knowng, and apperceiving,
> appreciating, apprehending, be acquainted, be cognisant of, be
> informed of, be learned of, be read of, be schooled in , be versed in,
> to cognise of, to comprehend of, to differentiate between, discern of,
> to discriminate between, to distinguish something as, experience, to
> fathom something, to feel certain of, to grasp, to have information
> about, to ken, to learn of, to notice, to perceive of, to realise, to
> recognise, to be alive to, to be apperceptive of, to be apprised of,
> assured, to be attentive to, to be au courant, to be awake to, to be
> aware of, to be certain of, to be cognisant of, to be conversant with,
> to be discerning of, to be he to*, informed of, keen about, knowing
> of, mindful of, on to*, perceiving of, percipient of, recognising
> of, remarking, responsive, seeing, to be sensible of, to be sensitive
> to, to be sentient as regards, to be sure of, to be understanding of,
> vigilant, watchful, to be wise to*, are almost exactly the same
> thing. How else would a human know of/about an entity is any other way
> that through the senses? As for the impressionable Socrates’ opinion
> about anything, and he lived them for a time didn’t he - it wasn’t
> the ONLY weirdo idea he was infected with by them.] Pretty much all
> of what he had to say [through the sycophantic stylus of Plato] can be
> discounted right away — for he believed that much of what we know
> was learnt in a former life which is not much of an intellectual
> provenance to put on any would-be thinkers job-application is it? He
> was not much more than an argumentative shaman who was lucky that he
> didn’t get beaten-up on a regular basis with his obsession that
> abstractions exist and can be defined. Pity he didn’t hitch a
> camel-trip to South Africa and contemplate the Hottentot women’s arses
> and argue out *beauty* with the Hottentot men. He would have soon been
> clubbed over his sophistical head with a knobkerry - the short wooden
> club with a heavy knob on one end; used by aborigines in southern
> Africa to convince the elenchusistic Western stranger or
> ex-pythagorean confused Greek bean-eater that the abstraction:
> *beautiful* arse was grossly made flesh in the huge lump of lard that
> swung like a roly-poly pendulum of wrinkled, black sunburned semisolid
> at the rear-end of their wobbling womenfolk. Plato’s metaphysical
> Mafialike mythologisation of Socrates’ *heroic* [quite stupid] death,
> I take with a pinch of salt from start to finish.I mean the whole
> *courageous/idiocy* business with the hemlock. It would have been more
> *courageous* to have accepted the offer to flee when his friend told
> him he had the boat ready for an escape overseas. So regarding
> Socrates claiming that individual perception is *the measure for
> whether and what and how something IS* does NOT MEAN that the said
> object of mensuration actually exists the way he referentially
> appraises and perceives it - but simply that the observing Socrates
> exists in such a state in which he perceives and then believes he
> knows the measure of it as a human measurer. So what’s the big
> philosophical deal about that?You can guess at the way I say this that
> I don’t have much time for Socrates, who I regard as a disputatious,
> (already at the time outmoded) elenchustic: “Ya! Ya! Boo! Boo!
> Sophistical pain in the arse, and all his acolytes and thurifers with
> him. In my opinion he and his ilk wrought more damage to western
> philosophy than Heidegger and his Nazification of philosophy and all
> the post-modernists and pederastic priests with their saccharine
> voices and hemlock words in history put together. It is telling that
> both Plato and Aristotle almost completely dropped this ancient
> Sophist confrontational elenchus-style concentration on tripping-up
> their interlocutors [seen as opponents to be humiliated] [though
> echoes of it still pertain on this list] rather than giving answers
> themselves, which was a hallmark of the Socratic style - a style which
> IMO was largely to blame for the vote going rightly against him at his
> trial, because he had antecedally insulted so many of the jury with
> his clever-dick approach and more than toyed with if not participated
> in outright treachery against the polis.

> DR. ELDRED:Plato Theaet. 152d:

> _…. hoos ara hen men auto kath’ hauto ouden estin, oud’ an ti
> proseipois orthoos oud’ hopoionoun ti, all’ ean hoos mega
> prosagoreuaes, kai smikron phaneitai, kai ean bary, kouphon, sympanta
> te houtoos, hoos maedenos ontos henos maete tinos maete hopoiououn:_

> “Socrates: … that nothing is itself one in itself, and you could not
> rightly call anything whatsoever something or somehow [i. e. as being
> of a certain quality], but if you call it large, it will also appear
> to be small, and light if you call it heavy, and everything else in
> the same way, since no being whatever is one nor is it something nor
> is it somehow [i. e. of a certain quality];” and everything else in
> the same way, since no being whatever is one nor is it something nor
> is it somehow [i. e. of a certain quality];”

> JUD EVANS: As usual he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
> EVERYTHING in the cosmos is itself one in itself.

ME: But how can that be, according to the materialist eliminativist? One
is an abstract idea, not to mention “one in itself”. So neither one nor
one in itself can exist, just as little as something (also an abstract
category) can exist according to eliminativism. If something existed in
the eliminativist universe, then it could perhaps also be one, but as it
is, nothing at all can be said about what’s in the eliminativist
universe.

> Jud: Whatever humans call anything as to i being of a certain quality
> of large or small or light or heavy, has go NOT ONE JOT to do with the
> object and EVERYTHING to do with the different modes in which humans
> exist. To one man some object may seem to be small, to another the
> same object may appear large, to the strong man an object may be known
> as being light, to a weaker man perceived as being heavy and to one
> man the Hottentot woman is a beauty whilst to another she appears the
> most hideous female wretch on earth.

> DR. ELDRED: Later on, when Socrates is about to reveal the hidden
> truth of Protagoras, he says:

> Plato Theaet. 155e: _Sokrates: Athrei dae periskopoon mae tis toon
> amuaetoon epakouaei. Eisin de houtoi hoi ouden allo oiomenoi einai ae
> ou an dynoontai aprix toin cheroin labesthai, praxeis de kai geneseis
> kai pan to aoraton ouk apodechomenoi hoos en ousias merei.
> Theaitaetos: Kai men dae, o Sokrates, sklaerous ge legeis kai [156a]
> antitypous anthroopous._

> “Socrates: Look round and see that none of the uninitiated is
> listening. The uninitiated are those who think nothing is except what
> they can grasp firmly with their hands, and who do not admit that
> actions and generation and all that is invisible are a part of being.

> JUD EVANS:It is a characteristic of all lumpen metaphysical Mystic
> Megs and obsessional entrails-rummaging ontofolk of any category,
> whether they be kookie Kabalists, Seventh Day Adventists,
> Salvationists, Berkeyleans, Alien Abductionists, Heideggerians, or
> Flat Earthers - they all say the same thing about the unbelievers in
> slightly different ways - Read more of your Bible/Being and Time -
> Fatuous *Father forgive them for they know not what they do* rubbish.
> Does that make the invisible exist?I’ll you who/what informs us that
> sundry entities that are invisible to the naked eye actually exist -
> it is the scientists and their optical and other sensory equipment
> that signal the concreticity of tiny objects - it is as simple as
> that.

ME: So the first, and perhaps only, theorem of eliminativism is:
For all x, if x cannot be perceived with the unaided or technically
aided eye, it does not exist.
Does this theorem have a proof, or is it to be taken as axiomatic dogma?

_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact at t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

> Jud: The ravings of such Greeks, who for the most part were only one
> step removed from barbarism and the shamanistic inheritance and folk
> tales of spirits ensconced in trees and rocks bearing as they did the
> handicap of a gang of wino Gods boozing and dining atop Mount Olympus
> and dispensing their petulant whims upon the great unwashed hoi polloi
> below - no wonder their folk-thinkers came up with so much
> folkish-onto-poo.

> Theaetetus: Truly, Socrates, those you speak of are very
> sclerotic/stubborn [156a] and perverse people.”

> The standard English translations have been modified to be closer to
> the Greek constructions and to bring out the points more starkly.

> JUD EVANS:Thank God for that small mercy that the Mediterranean Mystic
> Megs and Deistic David Copperfields have had someone to restrain them
> - if we weren’t so stubborn the Transylvanian Trannies would have had
> the whole earth afire years ago and Vlad the Impaler would have made
> Pope.Nevertheless - I do appreciate you posting this scholarly stuff,
> for it does make a welcome break from the thinly-disguised envious
> Jew-baiting which seems to becoming the *Being-Norm* here. regards,Jud
> Evans. Personal
> Website:http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm

Posted on Tuesday, September 26th, 2006 at 10:20 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback