Heidegger

In a message dated 9/27/2006 6:06:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
GEVANS613 at aol.com writes:
(1) A typical intrusive impingement would be a deterministic coupling of
[say] causal object (a) - a rusty nail, and causal object (b) a human big toe.

(2) A typical intrinsic impingement would be a deterministic coupling of
[say] causal object (c) - a metastatic tumour or cancerous conglomerate of
malignant cells, exerting pressure on causal object (d) the surrounding human hepatic
tissue.

A persistent feature of folk psychology with its curious obsession to
gratuitously trowel-on additional ontological ooky-spooky *spirit-levels* is the
belief that *pain* like *love* or *beauty* is something that actually exists *a la
la-la Plato* ‘in itself.’ That half-wit loon Plato has a hell of a lot to
answer for the way he cocked-up western ontology for centuries and scuffing off
his philosophically enervating *ontological difference* is like trying to
scrape shit off a suede shoe.

So leaving the plonker Plato aside, 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 and deterministically causes THE TRAUMA - [the nail or the cancer] and
*that which deterministically UNDERGOES the tissue change known as *trauma.*
[the big toe or the liver tissue.]
Accordingly, the nail, karkinos and Plato must be punished for their
transgressions and impounded wherever guilty objects are confined.
Bernard

(bxbovasso)

Posted on Thursday, September 28th, 2006 at 9:40 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback