Heidegger

In a message dated 6/25/2008 3:56:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
GEVANS613 at aol.com writes:

In a message dated 25/06/2008 20:01:49 GMT Standard Time, Bernx at aol.com
writes:

In a message dated 6/25/2008 12:06:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
artefact at t-online.de writes:

ME: You insist on applying the wrong measure to philosophical questions. That
gets you nowhere, i.e. it leaves you where you are with an unshakeable belief
in formal logic.

No, Michael, that leaves him with an “unshakeable” (qua unconscious) “belief”
in formal pre-logical magic.
Bernard

Jud:
Both you and Dr. Eldred are right. Logic of this sort is no better than the
sorcerous trannie ontological position. The operatives of such illogical
nonsense are obviously under the impression that such alchemical-style
symbolisation is superior to the more traditional trannie reificational cognitive cock-ups.
It is impossible to approach ontological questions [analysis) with
gremlinesque exes and backward Eees, and just as with ordinary words it all depends upon
which wandering ontological copuletic star one accepts in the initial
proposition. It SEEMS better because it hides a lot of ontological sins. My
professor, head of the philosophy dept, is a logician. Somewhat unsurprisingly, during
a seminar, I suggested {claimed) that formal logic is just a game of
lets-pretend and is not many steps above such things as crossword puzzles and hunt the
thimble. Suprisingly she agreed with me and said that like any game it
presupposes the acceptance of the existence of what many consider to be
nonsensicalities - like *sets* (and worse still - *empty sets*) and other such useful
conjural fictions.

Like scrabble, formal logic is fun to play and keeps the metaphysical
masqueraders from getting up to other more serious mischief, such as hanging around
street-corners or swinging on the supporting arms of sun-awnings outside stores
and public houses. More seriously some of the prestidigitators who believe
in it are cross-infecting computers and advanced forms of artificial
intelligence with the significational virus. Such acts of vandalism are rendering
artificial intelligence artificial un-intelligence with such corrupt forms of
ontological programming. Such is the nature of two steps forward- one step backward
pseudo-science.
Not so, Jud. Without one step back two steps foward is not possible, i.e.,
recapitualtion qua prognosis. Why do you think sleep (*hypnos*) and dream
(*oneiros*) are givens in the human nature?
Bernard

Posted on Sunday, June 29th, 2008 at 6:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback