Heidegger

In a message dated 05/02/2009 08:04:07 GMT Standard Time, jpolanik at nc.rr.com
writes:

>Joe: I renew my request that you either
1: admit that you merely *assume* that there is a conflict between this
postulate of AIT that there is no property-free state of any entity; or,
2: reveal the process by which you deduce that the CPI is in conflict with
this postulate of AIT.

Jud: Its all in the archives. Dig it out yourself

[Joe (new)]: Jud, you are becoming more like your man Martin every day. He
promised a deconstruction of the cartesian Cogito for a future section of BaT
but never delivered. consequently, Heideggerians are forced to reconstruct
what he might have said from possibly relevant fragments scattered throughout
his subsequent writings.

Jud: I am completely satisfied that I have dispensed with the cogito. It
would be wrong to say *deconstructed* the cogito, for it was never a serious
construction in the first place. Read my: *The Incognisant Cogito* again:

THE INCOGNISANT COGITO.

We do not need the formulaic self-referential confirmatory subsumptions
Descartes considered necessary for the recognition and incorporation of one’s
humanness under a more general category of *human.* It is not the utterance of
abstract nouns, verbal frequentatives (like *I think*) and reificative lexical
shells which confirm our existence as homo-sapiens. We are aware that we
exist as human beings at a much deeper non-lexical neurological level without
the need to articulate the obvious. We need no verbal formulaic mantras like:
*I think therefore I am* nor the mouthing of the usefully encoded first-person
personal pronouns: *I* and *me* to corroborate our manhood or womanhood.

Our brains are self-registering survivency organs, evolved to provide
continuous feedback of its own indications at the maxima and minima of experiential
variations. Our brains provide a ceaseless biologic systems-analysis backed
up by an informative biographic arcanum of stored stratagems for survival.

A brief consideration of these facts leads us to reject the motivation, the
requirement and the saneness of any ill-considered ritual of existential
self-confirmation of the type represented by the spurious Cartesian cogito
pantomime. The exposited content of a shell pronoun like *I* makes available an
enshelled or memory-packed abundance of potentially useful interfacial layers.
Such experiential templates enable the human entity to interact with the
environmental system in which it finds itself.

Whenever the personal pronouns * I* or *me* is conversationally generated
and introduced the memorising brain makes available a huge empiric digest, a
complete (if somewhat fractured) personal autobiography and an a constantly
updating compendium of one’s current , moods, actions, interests and
preoccupations with particular reference to the current Verhältnisse-Strom.

I claim that even prior to the use of the word *I* (or any other word) the
brain relates the first-person pronoun to the sub-lingual existential
language-possessing-entity itself, which is the utterer of the identity symbol in the
first place. Therefore human entities do not need to make an existential
claim - for there is no alternative to existing. To exist is a done deal which
is seen to be done by the resultant existent. The very fact of existing is
psychosomatically tantamount to confirming the lack of any non-existential
alternative. The whole Cartesian project is rendered a grossly nonsensical
redundancy - the historically spurious slow-witted claim that one needs a
verification that that which exists - exists.

Joe: you allege that you have presented a coherent argument to show how
there is a real conflict between the AIT and the CPI; but, I don’t recall ever
seeing any such argument and can not find it. so, much as a forensic marine
biologist might reconstruct the movements of a squid by analyzing the dispersal
patterns of the inkblots in which the squid tries to evade, so I will try to
reconstruct your argument by analyzing the patterns in the verbiage you crank
out as a distraction from the argument you are unwilling or unable to state
clearly.

Jud: I am not squid like. Even those who do not agree with what I have to
say or do not like me will agree that I never try to avoid or obfuscate replies
but address each point one by one and never snip anything that my discussant
has to say as a way of avoiding answering a point.

One cannot seriously argue against a fantasy such as the *is of *isness* or
CPI - one can only: *remark upon it.* In the same way that I would not dream
of arguing against Walt Disney’s *Snow White and the Seven Dwarves,* I cannot
really argue against a man who professes that he doesn’t know what he is.
Would Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm concern themselves anyone who had not attempted
to deconstruct *The Frog King* or *Hansel and Grethel? Would Hans Christian
Andersen worry that nobody was interested in reinterpreting The Ugly Duckling
by the method of deconstruction?

Joe: [Disclaimer: I’ll give it my best shot; but, if I don’t get this quite
right, it’s your own fault for not stating your own argument coherently.]

Jud: Go ahead Joe - pile one fantasy upon another into a virtual Battenberg
cake (or wishful thinking window cake) of illusion. It will be like the
interval of cartoons between the adverts, the support documentary and the main
feature, when the usherette with the ice-cream appears in the darkened isle.

Joe: the common ground from which the conflict emerges is something like:
we both admit that there is a speech pattern known as the is of isness (or
the is of existence) as documented by dictionaries, linguists and
philosophers over the course of millennia.

Jud: No. We do not. For the eliminativist *speech patterns* do not exist -
only the human patterning human speechifier is real.

The fact that (you claim) that such reification has been documented by
dictionaries, linguists and philosophers over the course of millennia does not
wash with me at all. Ninety-five percent of the world’s population believe in
fantasy. The only definition of *isness* on the internet (if you google:
define: isness) is *The Isness* - a 2002 album by experimental electronica group,
The Future Sound of London, released under the alias Amorphous Androgynous.
Also, you must have grasped by now that your idea of a *philosopher* and mine
are entirely different.

Joe: you claim that there is no logical basis for this speech pattern or
that it’s use involves some contradiction.

Jud: I simply reject the whole idea of a spooky duality called the *isness*
of that which exists - for me it is a completely ridiculous idea. You are
simply instantiating your neurological cognisance (registration by the higher
nervous centres) of the fact that an orange exists on the table into another
spurious ontological version. In other words you are reifying your
rhombencephalonic registration details of the orange in the region of your brain that
plays an important role in the integration of your sensory perception of the
orange.

Joe: your argument for that claim is something like this:

[JE 1]: that every use of the is of isness involves an assertion that some
entity (the subject of the assertion) is in a totally property-free state.

Jud: Wrong. I never attribute the *is of isness* to anything. If I DID
attempt to attribute something (like: *is* of which there is no such thing) to
something else which does not exist
(like *isness* or existence* which does not exist either, then I would be a
transcendentalist and not an eliminativist .

[JE 2]: no entity is ever in a totally property-free state.

Jud: Yes, if a conceptualised entity (an IDEA) of a real or fictionalised
object) is neurologically instantiated) it is always accompanied by some covert
predication.) If a conceptualised entity does not correspond to a REAL
entity (a nominatum) then ontologically speaking it remains unconceptualised and
what is imagined to be a conceptualisation is no more than a irreal
neurological fantasy.

[JE 3]: therefore, all assertions using the is of isness self-contradictory
or are in some other way false.

Jud. Wrong. *Assertions* using the *is* of *isness* do not exist. Only the
self-contradictory, falsely asserting asserter, or the factually asserting
asserter and his/her referenced nominatum exists.

Joe: I challenge [JE 1].

my counter argument to the above is:

[JP 1]: it has never been proven that every use of the is of isness asserts
that an entity is in a totally property-free state; and, indeed, no evidence
has ever been presented that [JE 1] is true.

Jud: That which does not exist can neither be true or false and neither 1.
truth nor falsity nor 2. *is* or *isness,* exist to be asserted by the
asserter.

Joe:

[JP 2]: that [JE 1] is false can be shown by a counter-example, the CPI,
which is stated using the is of isness. the CPI does not state that the referent
of ‘I’ has no properties; but, only that I do not know enough about these
properties to say what I am — because I lack knowledge sufficient to prove
either that a human is more than a human body or that a human is no more than a
human body.

Jud: The *CPI does not exist - only the partially ignorant Joe exists in a
state of not knowing what he is ( being unaware of the nature of his composite
serial existential modes).

Joe: [of course, if my reconstruction of your argument is not completely
correct, my counter-argument might adapt accordingly.]

Jud: My *argument* simply consists of denying that what you claim to exist
exists to be argued about. I have repeated, over and over again endlessly. If
you provide evidence, proof, authentication, substantiation, and validation
for the fantasies that form the basis of your claims - then upon your return
from Stockholm clutching your Nobel Prize for Partial Ignorance then we can
examine these new *objects* and try to make sense of them.

Joe: your rebuttal to my counter-argument seems to be

[JE 4]: that you’ve already proven that there is no is of isness; hence, no
one may state a claim that can only be stated with the is of isness; hence,
it is not possible to claim not to know whether a human is more than a human
body or not.

Jud: The fixations of a man with an obsession like yours can never be PROVED
- because one can never PROVE that something that does not exist does not
exist. All that a man can do when confronted with obviously crackpot claims is
to smile indulgently, try to explain the neurological - social reasons which
help to explain such delusions without sounding too patronising and leave it
that. I am sympathetic to your lack of reality-contactedness - but I can no
more prove that pink elephants zoom around the extra-galactic nebula in Ford
Edsels any more than anyone else.

Joe: is this reasonably accurate; and, if so, would you kindly state your
case for [JE 1]; but, if not, would you state your argument more accurately?

Jud:
The stuff of your propositions and your premisses (like most of the
propositional codswallop of so-called: Predicate “Logic”) is false - does not exist
and is fantasy. Objects exist and the human objects which talk about objects
and human objects exist - but what is talked about by human objects about
objects and human objects does not. If you start to talk about objects and
human objects instead of attributing bizarre varieties of existentiality to
non-existent fantasies for a change - then perhaps we can achieve some measure of
communication. That way (you may be surprised to discover) it is possible to
talk about anything in the wide world in the domain of science, genuine
philosophy and human culture including literature, poetry, music, history,
politics or whatever, and regain contact with “the real world.”

That (more or less) sums up my *argument.*

regards,

Jud

—————————————
———————————————————————-
Reifications - like biological entozoa are gut-enculturations which are not
necessarily reliant upon nor benignly disposed to the welfare of their
hosts.
——————————————————————————
——————————–

Sincerely,

Jud Evans.

Private Website: _http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
 http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…)

*Common sense and a sense of humour are the same thing, moving at
different speeds. A sense of humour is just common sense, dancing.*
(William James.)

Posted on Sunday, February 8th, 2009 at 7:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback