Heidegger

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.

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.

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:
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:
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:
Accordingly, you have intruded the aposteriori as predicate for the apriori..

Jud:
Perfectly true.

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:
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.

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.

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]?

What about some more stories from your colourful past Bernard - I love
reading them? Sincerely;

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

Posted on Sunday, September 17th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback