Heidegger

In a message dated 1/12/2008 7:54:55 AM Eastern Standard Time,
GEVANS613 at aol.com writes:

Thus the statement: *Being is the state or fact of existing* has an entirely
different tautological function from that of ordinary predication, as it
contains a *nominative substitution property* which, differentiates it from
normal predication.

Jud,
That is certainly the case insofar as “ordinary predication” and “normal
predication” are, like “common sense,” grounded in
an archai tautologism that to all purposes is “hidden,” *lethe,* “sublime”
or, in more contemporary terms “un” conscious. Your argument fails to
acknowledge the absolute necessity of the archai tautologism which is synonomous with
“God” and “It is.” Hence whether God or *it is* “exist” or not is totally
irrelevant except your thinking is grounded in “ordinary,” “normal” and “common”
sense which, because “sense”, has little to do with rigourous thinking.
Accordingly, your via negativa for verifying “existence” may pretend to rigourous
thinking when in fact it is drawn in commonality and conventionality, hence
autophobic and in exchange for the new (normal or conventional) order as noted
byThorsten Veblem in his *The Vested Interests and the Common Man* (1919):
“Adam Smith’s work and life-time falls in with the high tide
of eighteenth-century insight and understanding, and it marks an
epoch of spiritual achievement and stabilisation in civil
institutions, as well as in those principles of conduct that have
governed economic rights and relations since that date. But it
marks also the beginning of a new order in the state of the
industrial arts as well as in those material sciences which come
directly in touch with the industrial arts and which take their
logical bent from the same range of tangible experience. So it
happens that this modern point of view reached a stable and
symmetrical finality about the same date when the New Order of
experience and insight was beginning to bend men’s habits of
thought into lines that run at cross purposes with this same
stabilised point of view.
(cf., _http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/veblen/vested_
 http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll…)
_http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/veblen/leisure/chap02.txt_
 http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3…)

And of course, Jud, your common sense, however at cross purposes with
itself, goes back to the Magna Carter insofar as it was eventually reified in the US
Constitution and the new order of American traditional and conventional
anti-religion and anti-Papacy and a form of common dissention enjoyed by Melville
in oxymoronically pitting the Moby (the Mob) against the Dick (the Crown).
Thus, Jud, you are in the good company of traditional and American
conventionality/commonality and for that I must award you with a hat in which to stick a
feather and call it macaroni. Welcome aboard, Yankee Doodle come lately and share
in the American Manifest Destiny to commonalize the globe, free the slaves and
all common men who surely will starve to death before the prayed for
apocalypse has a chance to prove that God does not exist. Ah, *todestriebe!*..
Sincerely;
Bernard

Again, as far as statements such as *I am.* are concerned, as Jack London
wrote in *John Barleycorn:*

’Your ‘I’ is both subject and object; it predicates things of itself and is
the things predicated.’

**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.  http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exerc…

Posted on Sunday, January 13th, 2008 at 1:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback