Heidegger

In a message dated 9/17/2006 9:22:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
GEVANS613 at aol.com writes:
In a message dated 16/09/2006 22:59:42 GMT Standard Time, Bernx at aol.com
writes:

Jud notes:
In my ontology ­ in the ontology with which I associate myself
[eliminativism] if I wasn¹t in the world [not born or dead] then things would still exist.
It is simply that [because there would not be an *I*] I would not be here to be
aware of them.
Dear Jud; If apriori you were known not born or dead you would not know
things exist. It is only aposteriori that you know things exist since you are
neither dead or not born. Ergo, how could you know whether things do or do not
exist that you posit when not born or dead?

Dear Bernard,
What you say about the imaginary situation of me *never have been being* born
[now THERE’s a complicated conjugation for a foreigner to get his tongue
around] is absolutely true. However, I wasn’t treating of imaginary situations, I
was treating of the REAL situation of the fact that I WAS born, and therefore
[as the ontological beans have been spilt] I am aware that if I had not have
been born, and after I am dead the causal/changing objects that populate the
cosmos will still be here.
[bernard]Then you have the apriori on your mind as if changing objects could
exist whether you are here or not. Very spooky notion or at worst quite
metaphysical.
[Jud] That is why I wrote the remark to Peter King of the dried-up Bilabong
of *Being* and arranged for a fleet-of-foot aboriginal postal-runner to secure
my message twixt the prongs of a forked stick and carry the communication
immediately to Peter’s soap-box where he preaches about the coming of Lord Lacan
and the Black Knight Foucualt and Grand Master of the Universe Comrade
Heidegger.
[Bernard]Ah, there you are at your best where your purple prose says more
than a mind (brain?) full.
[Jud]What’s that you say? Native Australian postmen [the real and rightful
owners of Australia] drive around in shiny red souped-up vans with MP3-players
stuck in their lug-holes listening to Tschaikovsky? Good on them. It won’t be
long then before we have a native Australian President of the United Nations,
and they turf out that no-good banana-scoffing Caribbean chappie who sits on
his ass all day speaking in … a very low voice… while millions are killed in
Sudan. Why doesn’t the bastard threaten to resign if the dis-united nations
don’t pull together and do something to help, in spite of the clowns that run
Sudan saying that they will brook no interference.
[Bernard]Well, for the U.N. it is pars pro toto all the way. i.e, my pars is
all.
[Bernard]:You have allowed the state (of being) as not born or dead as
apodictic to your aposteriori assertion that you do exist (i. e., have being or
presence) by which you establish that things do exist.
[Jud]:That is just it me auld salt, I do not believe that there IS a state of
being not born or being dead - that is why Hamlet was speaking utter balls in
his battlement solloquy - there is NO *not to be.* I view my presence here
and yours as being absolutely INEVITABLE. You want proof/ Just look in the
mirror and pinch yourself - you are here aren’t you? That means that it was
inevitable, because if it hadn’t been inevitable you wouldn’t be here.[Bernard]Again,
The inevitabile qua the apriori! That means I was made in heaven before the
evidence of me? Do you equate the “absolutely inevitable” with pre-destination?
I hate to think someone or it wrote my book before I learned to read.
[Bernard]:In this manner you assume in your apriori state of not born or dead
that things exist.
[Jud]:Correction. No I do not assume that For I KNOW that (A) A state of
being unborn does not exist. (B) Because my presence here is an ontological fait
accompli I know that causal/changing objects exist in the same way that my
house still exists when I go on holiday to Timbuktu. I also noted than after my
mother died all her clothes were still hanging in the wardrobe.[Bernard] Of
course “state of being does not exist.” So why use it to posit that familiar
things and objects may exist without you when you are in Timbuktu or in the
never-never land of u-topos? You will not know that until you come home. Knowing at a
distance is extremely problematic except you are a disciple of David Bohm’s,
or Ruppert Sheldrake’s non-locality.
[Bernard]:Accordingly, you have intruded the aposteriori as predicate for the
apriori.
[Jud]:Perfectly true.
[Bernard]Even when neither have anything to do with each other? Well, as
Popper noted
one cannot disprove the apriori given and if we are unable to disprove the
aposteriori it has no empirical foundation. In other words, the metaphysics of
the apriori has nothing to do with the physics of the aposteriori.
[Bernard]:That is not logically fair and that is why we needed Kant to arrive
to correct the pure reason that was predicated in the very common sense.
[Jud]:You mean the *Categorical *Vee haf veys of maykink schou do dis*
imperious Kant?* My ontology is not influenced by fairness to middle class East
Prussians and the tongue-reaming of the rear ends of the Königsberg landed
classes, but by a rigorous investigation of what exists [as opposed to the
ontological falsities which the crystal-ball brigade claim exist. My ontology can be
summed up in ten words - *If it is not an energo-physical object it doesn’t
exist.* All the rest - the descriptional flim-flam of the way this person or that
person perceives objects - the attribution of: *properties, motion, time,
number, mind, Being, consciousness, the *East Cheam Junior Hockey Team* and *The
Royal and Respected Ancient Order of Antiquecaries* is just a load of very
necessary and important hot air.[Bernard]But of course. Yet we cannot get on with
it with bread alone. Maybe the animals, including der volk can.
[Bernard:] If we went by common sense the world would still be considered
flat according to the common sense of what I empirically see is what exists.
[Jud:]Common-sense corresponds to what is considered at the time to be sound
practical judgement based on the experiential *It has always worked that way
for me* so it will no doubt suit other people too as being best for them*
outlook. The powers that be - the church, certain forms of government promote
*commonsense* for like Heidegger they see Der Volkisch alte gestaltet Wege vom
Anschauen der Welt as having allowed them to achieve positions of prominence over
the heads of the turds and as being likely to being helpful in retaining their
positions.
[Bernard:] It was figured out that the world exists as round by secondary
inferences and not be direct (common) sense.
[Jud:] I do not agree here Mein Kapitan. The ancients must have noticed the
way that from a position ashore a ship seems to arise out of the sea on the
horizon, and from a ship tall land features are always spotted first from the
crow’s nest. Also ship’s bells must have rung when the spherical shadow of the
earth was seen to cross the old silvery moon at the time of a lunar eclipse -
particularly that of a *Total Lunar Eclipse,* when the entire moon passes
through Earth’s umbral shadow. These events are quite striking and I have seen one
on TV, and have a vague memory of seeing one in my youth with the vibrant
range of colors the moon can take on during the total phase. [Bernard]What has
that got to do with the earth being round, square or flat? I am afraid that you
allow the very, very common sense of
Der Volkisch far too much power of inference and deduction.
[Jud]Yeah, I know the dick-headed religious brigade jumped on the folk
bandwagon (like the scoundrel Heidegger did with the folk-view of *Being*) and
before anti-scientific priests went to the dentist’s for painless treatment of
their gum disease, and before modern astronomy arose, there were long-standing
explanations for eclipses in many cultures.
[Bernard]Indeed, “before modern astronomy arose” it was prehistoricaaly
figured out the time it takes for the earth wobble to complete its cycle (26,000
years); or the migration of the pole star from the constelation Draco to that of
Ursa minor. No folksy common sense involved but astronomical calculation by
chaldean sky watchers and those of the British Isles and Britainy setting up
sighting menhirs to predict astronomical events.
[Jud]These would typically involve conflicts between mythic forces as dreamed
up by con-men priests. For example, in Hindu mythology, the two demons
Rahuand Ketu were believed to be the cause of eclipses. However Aryabhata gave an
accurate explanation of the eclipse in his scientific treatise Aryabhatiya dated
499 AD . Similarly in China, at the Imperial observatory in Beijing, is a
carved stone with the following explanation:”This carved stone chart explained
the cause of solar eclipses. The center of the golden bird (the symbol of the
sun) was covered by the toad (the symbol of the moon). The people of the Han
Dynasty called the phenomenon a good combination of the sun and the moon.” In
this explanation we see a recognition of the celestial realities and a cheerful
outlook regarding the event. In other cultures an eclipse could be both a
surprising and a terrifying event. The Religious Dick-head Activity report is
thanks to wikopdia.
[Bernard:]In a similiar manner it was determined the (spherical) world had an
axis mundi that wobbled and how the Platonic year was arrived at as a 26,000
year cycle.
[Jud]:A long time to wait for Christmas presents by any standard. The more I
read about Flat-Face the more I realise the terrible trouble the old
metaphysically meddling moron caused for mankind - particularly children. ;-0
[Bernard:]By these given (apriori) facts both the Mayan calender and our
Chalden figuring it was determined apriori that the precessional cycle would
complete itself by the year 2012. I would have preferred it if your eliminativist
hypothesis held the greater truth since the complementarity of the apriori and
the aposteriori is cause for one’s hair going prematurely grey. The problem
for the human species is that it is a race of foresighters and prognosticators
and whether or not this is achieved magically or by science (or both at once).
[Jud:]Maybe the church should be forced to provide old age pensioners with
free bottles of hair dye as they are responsible for all this greyness we see
around us - specially in post-offices queues on friday mornings [pension day]?
[Bernard]What! You would have the Church of England compete with the national
socialism of the UK?
[Jud]What about some more stories from your colourful past Bernard - I love
reading them? Sincerely;,Jud Evans. Personal Website:
[Bernard]Oh, yes, I love to tell “sea stories.” I have a few in the book I
sent you. About Cornwall and a little channel village called Fowey (Foi).
Recently I met a fellow who lives here and is a painter like myself who actually
comes from Fowey. So, we have become good friends and I am renting him studio
space in my building. He was very surprised that I pronounced Fowey as a Cornish
person would (Foi), But the fowey I knew in 1946 when we put in there for a
cargo of china clay today looks more like disney land or coney Island. I dug out
some pictures I had taken of Fowey back then, including the harbour and the
train station for my Cornish friend Adrian Frost to see.
sincerely;
Bernard
 http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…

Posted on Sunday, September 17th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback