Heidegger

Jud, OD is indeed very odd. To be in-between beings and being is odd, but NOT being in between even much more so. The belief that one still has to do with beings or things or hours, while ‘being’ and ‘thing’ and ‘time’ are considered to be merely fictions, is so irrational, or better: suicidal, that one asks why intelligent men prefer contradiction to philosophy. Still, i think, they are one step ahead of those simply proclaiming the ongoing validity of these notions. To both positions, Heidegger is a deadly ennemy, but at least you know it. (If one does not know one’s enemy, one is not able to love him). But that is already it. Effectively, all positions end up neo-con, a mess of old and new. What else can one expect? When the Titanic capsizes, all fall in the same direction.

Maybe you would like to reconsider the wheather, the most discussed topic of common sense. Like summer , winter, and nihilism, “it does not exist”, but it is always around us.

regards
rene

—–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
Van: heidegger-bounces at an-archos.com [mailto:heidegger-bounces@an-archos.com]Namens GEVANS613 at aol.com
Verzonden: vrijdag 5 oktober 2007 23:36
Aan: heidegger at an-archos.com
Onderwerp: Re: The Oddness of the OD

In a message dated 05/10/2007 16:45:26 GMT Standard Time, R.B.M.deBakker at uva.nl writes:

Rene writes:
As said: there are only things (beings which are - onta, res) by virtue of being.

Jud:
The onta are not to be found in the cosmos *BY VIRTUE of Being.* As the British soldiers used to sing in the trenches of WW1:

*We’re here because we’re here because we’re here.* It is *The Anthem of the Onta* which rings out down the corridors of Infinity.

There is no need to add a gratuitous second ontological level. For the ontic to exist is an ontological necessity (to mae on is an ontological impossibility.) Onta is not an ontological happenstance - it is an existential imperative. The onta has always been, is, and will continue to be indestructible onta in ever-becoming, ever-changing ontic-specific, material configurations.

Rene:
without it they cannot even be thought. with respect to Plato, Heidegger writes that perceiving a book, or any specific thing, always involves more than mere perception: in order to perceive a book, one must already KNOW in some way what a book is.

Jud:
As far as existing is concerned - perception is a myth, as is knowledge. What exists AND ONLY EXISTS are perceiving, knowledgeable humans. The information does not exist in books, film, the internet or any medium of communication OUTSIDE OF THE HUMAN BODY. The human knowing/s of the informant-author is/are not *ideated* until perceived, and transacted and acted upon by a human knower’s brain, which interprets the typographical sign system and then adapts its modus to accommodate the incoming informative news of the modus of the informant. The a priori [antecedal ] *knowing* to which Heidegger refers is actually the existential neurological state of the knowing human who comes to a book knowing that it provides access to the knowing modes of the writer.

Rene
such fore-knowledge concerns the essence of things, what they are their eide/ideai, their aspect. thus, eidos/idea is for Plato the being of beings

Jud:
There is no *fore-knowledge - only fore-knowing humans. In the case of Plato - the *Being of beings* is a primitive nonsense only matched by African witch-doctory and Inuit shamanism

Rene:
beings and (their) being only exist by way of opposition, and that is: relative to each other.

Jud:
Beings have no *Being* which is ontologically *registered* to them as accredited *owners of the recorded deeds to a *House of Being,* by courtesy of some Platonic Relational Registration Bureau* in the sky. They - very simply - exist. The ever-changing transient forms beings adopt [as a response to the cosmic environment] is simply; *how they are as a being.* The names that humans given to describe the existential formats of the onta which surrounds them - does not exist as *another* or separate* or *different* holeronic *ontic bolt-on,* which is existentially contrastive from the ontic totalisation which IS the object.

Rene:
It is not Plato who made this relation, it is what he opens, and dives into, in order to explain what things are.

Jud:
Well Plato dived in at the shallow end and ended up with shallow explanations, which may have been acceptable to the hoi polloi of the time, in the intervals when they were not divining their military strategies from the dispositional configuration of steaming goat giblets spilled onto the altar via the slashing knife of a shaman. Such ontological ignorance may well have been useful and admirably suited the Christian *Manipulators of Reason* during the dark shadow of European dominance by a malignant religion.

But all that makes no sense to the modern mind, and is only interesting in that it lends traitorous support to the enemies of the west. If the west still trades in reification its enemies can claim that their reificational versions are better IN COMPARISON. (the good and the evil logos polarised) in other words our own, home-grown reification rubber stamps a reificationary principle. Platonism justifies organised reification with a class of priestly reificants as a natural way for humankind to be, as was demonstrated by the alacrity in the way that it was cherry-picked by emergent Christianity.

Rene;
Also Heidegger - who for the first time named ontological difference as such - did not make it. but without a philosopher, there is no way to find out that our being is ordered in that way. Our condition nowadays is such that, in the public space where there can be no difference, being is nothing,

Jud:
Any linguist could have told you that the *ontological difference* has been a feature of human language for millennia. (pre Indus River Valley times) So what went wrong? Abstraction was fine and dandy for the cognoscenti, who realised that such reification was a necessary fictional tool, but the masses - the great primitive unwashed became inhabituated to it and began to cognise of it as really existing. The price? Wars, misunderstanding, academic confusion, inter-human hatred and the danger of a militant form of reification destroying large areas if not the entire world.

Rene:
It is therefore that Heidegger contends that the name ‘being’ has to disappear. (’Insight into what-is’) New words - like Seyn, Ereignis - can only be interim. meanwhile one has to face the situation we are in: all usage of the word ‘is’, all predication is crumbling. only earth and sky are emerging of themselves.
(metaphysics has always been between earth and sky). For the time being, we are committed to the predication of climate change. That something is wrong with it is felt by everyone, but nobody can SAY what it is. there just has been one philosopher pointing to what-is - the togetherness of earth and sky, mortals and gods: the Geviert, and why it can’t arrive, come through: we are still not ready - circularity)

Jud:
A prudent recognition of the danger and its probable result, but a wrong diagnosis of the reasons why it came about, plus no attempt at prescribing a solution to stop the reificational rot.

The answer? Root out reification as real - Re-establish reification as the ideative tool it was developed as.
In other words - educate the masses.

Regards,

Jud
Personal Website: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…

“In nuclear war all men are cremated equal.”
Dexter Gordon

Posted on Monday, October 8th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback