Heidegger

> I doubt if a ban on toilet paper
> would save the planet.
> A better way to stave off ecological disaster would to place an
> immediate ban on all future publications of books on Heidegger.
> The tonnage of inane ramblings and new fanciful subjects dreamed up
> by desperate academics in search of some kind of novelty
> is definitely a threat to the rain forests. The latest publication
> is being marketed as:
> *A Hermeneutical Analysis of the Sewerage Industry and the
> Phenomena of Escalating Daseinic Dung Disposal.*

Well, publishing books it the way in which the academe communicates
substantial information. I think that would not go away as easily as we’d
wish. Besides, look at it politically: one has to break eggs to make
omelette. Heidegger is a friend of the ecologists, and he promotes a
responsible attitude in respect to technology. So, the trees that are cut
with that occasion are like the eggs which are broken in the process of
making omelette (raising awareness).

> Jud:
> I wish God would provide a functioning toilet in the concourse of
> the Preston Bus Terminal.
> The last time I went in the toilet was blocked with copies of the
> Salvationist *AWAKE!* and *THE YOUNG SOLDIER.*

Well, God did a world wherein people are able to organize to keep their
toilets functional, if that is their priority. If humans fail to do that,
don’t blame God for it.

> Tudor:
> The human civilization will survive in the measure it will learn
> to adapt to a disaster it has itself produced. Perhaps if the aliens
> invade
> the Earth and steal all its oil, it would be a heavenly blessing.
>
> Jud:
> Not if the American religious maniacs have their way - for the God-
> Gobbling head-banging right is the chief supporter of Bummer Bush
> and his Republican *Paint the World Black Pollution Party.*

Well, yes, Bush would paint the world black if allowed the chance. In fact,
he is a very funny person, he leads a revolution which seems to redefine
democracy so that it no longer means anything. Well, that was done with a
lot of very complex and refined political thinking. And Bush’s intellect
simply cannot comprehend that philosophy, but he is proud to be its
exponent. If I see Bush speaking, I begin to laugh. He tries so hard to take
himself seriously, so that it is very comic.

Leo Strauss is difficult to comprehend, even for his own followers. I think
he would not be pleased with how the things are going on now. What he did
not offer is a license for the political class to do everything they wish. I
think he would disapprove of torturing Iraqi partisans and innocents, simply
because that brings a bad name to his movement and to his country.

> Jud:
> *Him?* You mean *God* is male and has he got a cosmic cock and
> testicles rather than a universal uterus?
> No wonder the priesthood is becoming increasing popular with women
> taking the cloth.

Actually God is He+She (Genesis 1:26-27, cf. http://members.home.nl/intellect/godsex…. ). I did not use this form
because it is shocking for some readers.

> Jud:
> Heidegger didn’t change did he - never condemned the evil behaviour
> of his Nazi comrades.

That was because he was no part of such behaviour. There were many Nazi
party members who were honest and did not harm anyone. There were even SS
troops who had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Gunter Grass was one of
them. Putting the blame upon some individuals, because they are members of a
group, that’s is not compatible with a state of law (unless those
individuals take themselves part in the criminal activities of that group).
There is an offence of being member of a criminal organisation, but that
should not be applied literally. E.g., someone who served beer to Hitler is
not responsible for the Holocaust. Otherwise the murderer Volker van der G.
should be rewarded the highest honours of the Dutch state. That’s only a
joke, because Pim Fortuyn seems to be more dangerous dead than when he was
alive. See for details http://www.sum.nl/content/pages/i/magazi…
05.asp

> Abstraction osmotically soaks through the brain’s neuronal
> interstices sand eventually provides a potential for the invasion of the
> dangerous *Being* bacteria* with horrendous results. The victim become
> delirious and calls for the extermination of millions of his neighbours
> and fellow citizens.
> (See Heidegger.)

Well, I never knew that Heidegger instigated to the Holocaust. Quotation
please!

> Jud:
> But Heidegger did not claim that he used the concept of *nothing* as
> a philosophical cats-paw.
> For the loony unhygienic leaf-lover Heidegger *Nothing* has a
> *nature* and a reality.*
>
> *It’s not anything, and it’s not something, yet it isn’t the
> negation of something, either. Traditional logic is no help, since it
> merely regards all negation as derivative from something positive. So,
> Heidegger proposed, we must abandon logic in order to explore the
> character of Nothing as the background out of which everything emerges.
> Carefully contemplating Nothing in itself, we begin to notice the
> importance and vitality of our own moods. Above all else, Nothing is what
> produces in us a feeling of dread {Ger. Angst}. This deep feeling of
> dread, Heidegger held, is the most fundamental human clue to the nature
> and reality of Nothing.’
> See *The Madman of Metaphysics;*
> http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/7b.htm

Well, that’s the crappiest rendering of his theories I ever met. Heidegger
was opposed to the logic of tertium non datur (an antiquated logical
principle, according to some relevant 20th century logicians).

There nothing more offensive to his theories than to reduce his writings to
some exaltation of moodiness. And there are a lot of people who feel
anxiety, but never meet Being, nor they have enough knowledge of philosophy
to understand for which football team plays this Heidegger.

> Jud:
> You Meinongian *guru* needs his bumps feeling. If I utter the words
> *Butterfly condoms* does that mean that they exist?

Well, butterfly condoms exist potentially, in an unmanifest form. They could
become actual, e.g. either as a funny sex toy or in a cartoon film. By
simply mentioning an idea, you have proven that idea is not impossible. If
it were impossible, it could not be mentioned. E.g., on specific Smarandache
manifolds, the circle is a square.

> Jud:
> If the *unutterable* cannot be uttered then why utter the word if it
> is a redundancy?
> He also allows humans to create buildings which collapse in his
> earthquakes and are drowned in his floods.
> Or are you claiming that humankind cause earthquakes and tidal
> waves? For me the only thing unutterable
> than cannot be uttered is God’s utter fiendishness and maniacal
> cruelty to his children.
> As a child-abuser he is far worse than any human pervert is he not?
> Do you approve of God’s wicked abuse of his
> flock? No shepherd would treat his sheep that way. I’m sure that
> even the *Shepherd of *Being* Heidegger presumably just wished to
> exterminate his hated Jews quickly and efficiently in his *Factory Farms,*
> rather than torture and play with them, and hand out lingering deaths to
> them beneath fallen masonry?

That cannot count as a falsification of God’s existence, since Isaiah 45:7
and some verses in the Book of Job say that God is not necessarily morally
good. God is beyond good and evil. See http://members.home.nl/intellect/letter….

> Jud:
> *Void, space and nothingness* are primitive concepts.
> A photon cannot *make its way through emptiness* because *emptiness*
> doesn’t exist for anything to make its way through it.
> Cutting edge cosmology posits the existence of dark matter which is
> all pervasive.

Well, I am able to admit the existence of dark matter, but there are recent
theories who claims it is not everywhere, but only in certain places, e.g.
in certain galaxies, around their core, or so.

If you think that dark matter is a replacement for the concept of void, then
you would have to face a similar falsification for that as in
Michelson-Morley experiment, which could find no evidence of cosmic ether,
i.e. that environment which would allow for the propagation of
electromagnetic radiation. Einstein said there is no such thing as ether,
and he affirmed that in its place is nothing but void.

Remarkably was that Einstein did not do any real world experiment in order
to design his theory, and the instruments he needed were pen and paper. A
lot of subsequent observations and experiments showed that Einstein came
very close to the truth (i.e. ignoring that two versors of different
vectorial configuration cannot pass one through the other).

Some claim that dark matter particles occasionally go through the Earth, but
it certainly cannot account for holding electrons around the nucleus,
instead of falling in it.

We take it for granted from Max Planck and others that if electrons obey
certain eigen-values of energy, they do not radiate any energy, therefore
they can go on forever (or so) around the nucleus, just as the Earth
gravitates around the Sun for milliards years. We know that this is true,
but we ignore its cause.

> jud:
> What you say absolutely contradicts the bible which claims that
> *God* created the earth out of *nothing* in seven days.

I already showed that the Bible does NOT claim that God created the world
out of nothing. And, those seven days were not literal days. E.g., where
there was no Sun, we have to measure in galactic days, namely 226 million
years. But the Bible refers to times before our Galaxy existed, and then the
“day” should have been much longer.

Besides, Einstein showed that it is possible that four billions years
measured by a watch on the Earth are equivalent to six days measured
somewhere else (moving at a certain speed).

> Jud:
> All entities in the cosmos interact in some way with other entities.

Well, yes, James Thomson said that one cannot touch a flower without
ravishing a star.

> Jud:
> The *laws of physics* do not exist. What exists are the entities
> which exist in accordance with their OWN existential imperatives.

Well, funny, because how could those particles obey such patterns of
behaviour if there are no patterns of behaviour?

> As *nothing* does not and cannot exist - all of the cosmos is
> material. If all of the cosmos is material, then strictly speaking
> individual entities do not *have* their ‘own’ laws but exist in
> accordance with the mutual existential character of all that is material
> i.e., the cosmos. Hence the cosmos exists in accordance with it OWN
> existential imperative and not in accordance with that of some non-
> existent *God.* who, being nonmaterial, could not exist in the first
> place. The all-material cosmos has no place for non-existent, nonmaterial
> heavenly hitchhikers.

Well, speaking of elementary particles, they are material in some metaphoric
sense, otherwise they possess no attribute of a billiard ball. They have no
shape, they have no color, we don’t know what they are made of (their
substance), they don’t have a fixed place, electrons don’t have a fixed
revolution around the nucleus, but an electron in my body has a certain
probability of being now on Mars, they spin around their “axis” only if we
care to measure their spin, they are assumed to interact with the observer’s
awareness (at least in some mainstream theories), they don’t have a given
size, they may be teleported, their behaviour is called “spooky action”,
because it acts on a distance, without any material intermediation, a proton
or an electron can change instantly in a multitude of other particles, which
almost immediately recompose the original particle, they are able to come
out of nowhere and be created by knocking two particles which transform
their energy into other particles, those particles are at the same time
waves. Putting it shortly, they are like some concentrations of energy which
behave like there were around a given place, but do not fit the concept of
“matter”, as championed by materialists.

> Jud:
> *Theorems* don’t exist to change or remain unchanged. Only human
> theorists exist and theorisers exist.

Well, then how did they impose upon all Euclidian triangles the duty of
having two right angles as the sum of their angles? Was that magic or what?
Or how can one then use information that does not exist in order to build
real bridges, houses and flats? Are you aware that the CD’s which made your
computer work did not put any matter on your hard disks?

> Jud:
> Wow! Tudor is turning into a determinist! Whether the electrons
> exist in modes of orderly or disorderliness is besides the point - the
> point is that they are capable of change, and changing their position in
> order to hit the backside of your PC screen is one manifestation of that
> change.

Frankly, I am a thelesmic determinist, i.e. I assume that there is nothing
due to randomness, but all is due to One and/or more wills. E.g., the will
of those who made my computer, of those who made the internet, and many
others, including my will to write e-mails produce this message.

> Tudor:
> Well, the existential imperative should exist at least as an
> abstract being
> which enables everything else to be. Otherwise, that existential
> imperative
> would be powerless; it could not secure the continuing existence of
> the
> universe.
>
> Jud:
> You make the fatal philosophical [and typically Heideggerian]
> mistake of personification.
> The existential imperative [*nature*] is not powerful - it does not
> in an anthropocentric way try to *secure* anything at all
> - that is teleological moonshine.

Well, you claim that the principle of reality is something unreal. Funny.

> Tudor: And God is indeed in the streets of New York,
>
> Jud:
> What is he - some kind of street cleaner or pavement artist?

Well, God is everything, He+She is the dog walking on a street, He+She is
the street, He+She is everything and there is nothing without God.

> Jud:
> Remind me never to go to new York. I couldn’t stand seeing the dogs
> defecating all over God.

Well, God is Total, therefore He+She includes everything, including the
excrements of the dogs. Otherwise that amount of matter could not be
recycled by the environment, and the Earth would have lost a lost of mass,
including essential minerals, which are necessary for our lives. It would
have lost a lot of carbon compounds in this process, and if the living
beings would not give back carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, we would have a
permanent ice age.

> Jud:
> You need to visit Britain - the churches are empty and God is a
> joke.
> Not many people on this island see him - except raving lunatics of
> course.

Well, that’s the poverty of our time, spiritual poverty. But happy are those
poor in spirit, for they won’t be asked to write philosophical treatises
during their redemption exam.

> Jud:
> Tch, tch Tudor - you cut and pasted that from the *evidence section*
> of *Cults in Our Midst: The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace*
> didn’t you - you naughty boy? In spite of all that I find you very
> interesting and I enjoy your posts. You are also very patient with my
> banter.

I like to hear that. I would appreciate that you wouldn’t seek to offend my
guru or anyone else. That is because if people renounce to politeness, the
way of abuses of any kind is laid open. Like those Germans which Norbert
Elias said they were very polite to everybody, except to the Jews, simply
because the Germans of that time did not consider that Jews are human
beings. That also happened in Rwanda, where they were told to kill
cockroaches. Killing a human being is a serious crime, but killing a
cockroach is what they do to keep their kitchen clean. Hannah Arendt called
it dehumanization. E.g., I saw discussions on internet, many consider that
protection against torture can be applied to human persons, but not to enemy
combatants, whose hate for us transformed them into something subhuman, they
claim.

Greetings,

Tudor

Posted on Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006 at 6:15 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback