Heidegger

In a message dated 04/08/2008 07:07:31 GMT Standard Time,
allen.scult at DRAKE.EDU writes:

>> But as my mother used to say, “Call me ‘Pisher,’ but with your
>> mishaga’as you’re lucky to be working at all.”
>
>Ha. I love your mother already. And, if the pisher-juddian sharks were to
>rule they’ve have us (mishaganeh jews who dally with Heidegger, whether
>writing books or composing operas) arrested for being bad jews…
>

Excommunication, I’m afraid, is the only punishment available. This
blessing Spinoza received from any number of communities.
Nonetheless, no one could deny, he ground one mean lens.

Jud:
You two… meshuganeh? Yes, I’ll grant you that! Yet if one searches hard
enough there are a few hidden benefits from having meshuggeneh associates I
suppose. Like the charoses and bitter herbs in a Hillel sandwich some
meshuggenim are a little bit nutty, somewhat interesting and sweet at times, and
occasionally bitter or hard to take. But meshuganeh can also mean difficult,
irritating, and in the case of the groupie-type worship of the Messkirch
muezzin who called for the death of all Jews from his candle-lit window,
(actually at a Nazi meeting) - a Nazi lover too (Note - in the protagonistical
singular cultish sense) misguided hero-worshippers of a notorious Nazi bastard of
Baal, which is damned disgraceful behaviour for any Jew , who, if they
worship anything - should confine their worship to God, as my Jewish friends
here consistently make clear, in words so profane that I dare not use on an
adult public list.

When the Children of Israel were fearful slaves in Egypt would you have
sucked up to the Pharaoh and laughed off the blows from his thugs’ knouts? When
Mohammed killed the Jewish tribes of Medina, would you have tried to gain
favour by flattering the old boy and have said he was a good *shepherd of
*Being* who was right to clear the stinking streets of more thoughtful and
hardworking citizens?
Would you (perhaps because Aviccena was a good thinker, and in the field of
music, provided a contribution that was an improvement over Farabi’s work and
was far ahead of musical knowledge prevailing elsewhere on the subject.
(Doubling with the fourth and fifth) raise your glass in a shalom to the
murderers of Moorish Spain, who, during the 1066 Granada massacre, killed more than
1,500 Jewish families, numbering 4,000 persons, in one day and probably led to
the later exodus from villages like Pennamacoor? (without which we would not
now be able to enjoy the make-up-your-mind decisional minimalism of the
occasional minimalist composer in our midst.)

If you would not dream of doing these awful things, why in the bowels of
Christ do you chose to elevate a man who called for the murder of millions of
his fellow citizens, people who looked like him, breathed like him, laughed like
him, cried like him, produced children like he did, spoke like him,
philosophised like him, many of whom had fought ( I cannot say *fought like him*
for he was a post-office clerk in uniform - although he later lied and claimed
he was at the front) for his appalling *fatherland* in WW1 to protect his
country’s stinking sauerkraut-farms and African extermination camps, and the
right to massacre 65,000 members of the Herero tribe by German troops in
Namibia, from the invasion of the British and American *decadents* he hated so
much?

*Because he was a philosophical genius* you say? *The most important
philosopher of the twentieth century* And what did this genius consist of? What
astounding cognitive breakthrough did this lying twerp achieve? As I have
asked time and time again on this list - *What did he say that was at all new?*

Answer? A profound and telling silence, for there was and is nothing new at
all, for all of his metaphysical crap was plagaristic ontological rubbish
recast in the language of a childish moron. The Heideggerian cult itself is a
love-affair with the grammatical and semantic grotesqerie of the self-absorbed
babyish language itself - the rarefied, reified medium - not the message
contained in the insubstantial nonsensicalities of what the babyish language of
the Heideggerian Harvey’s Rabbit or what the lying leporidaen neologistic
nightmare actually attempts to say of any philosophical consequence.

A *re-discovery* of *Being* - don’t make me laugh! Many pre-socratics and
most churches in Christendom had been beating the meat and flapping their lips
about *Being* for the last two thousand years. The word *Being* was still
current at the time his obnoxious *Being and Time* was written, and was common
parlance in certain spiritual and even street usage and was a part of
natural speech. *He introduced a new way of talking about *Being*? Rubbish - kids
have been talking about what happens in their world in baby-language for
hundreds of years.

The stock phrases that have become nonsense through endless repetition which
has appeared here from the pen of Dr. D. Luded of Deutschland or yourselves
over the years has been said by snotty-nosed children everywhere for
centuries and in a similar sort of tinker’s (rather than thinker’s) cant. The
Bedeutung-frei language of Heideggerianism is the philosophical equivalent of the
language of the medieval gong-farmer, (or gongfermor) the Victorian slum, the
sheep-shearing shed, the Parisian *Maison close* or the drunken mens’
toilet of a red-neck saloon-bar in downtown Horneytown, North Carolina.

So what philosophical *gift* did this adulterous Nazi runt-on-the-make
bestow on ignorant mankind? What changes did his metaphysical fantasies and
transcendentalist trash bring about in the general direction of the betterment of
mankind - I will tell you in two little words - *absolute zilch.*

I ask you this - *Can an idiot who wrote *the leaf is green* and looked for
the *is* in a leaf even be consider sane?*

As for Spinoza - you both got it wrong. The buzz in the corridors of shame
is that his expulsion from schule was not for attack upon local ritualistic
fuddy-duddyism in a soul-stifling synagogue - but on *The Eternal One,* (YHWH)
himself. Any of his later references and apparent philosophical
reconciliation with an imagined almighty were covering strategies and insurances written
to avoid the inevitable bonfires of the Dutch goys and sundry Catholic
religious thugs. Spinoza was as atheistic as a genuine ten bob note, which are in
themselves utterly worthless other than to collectors of ephemera and
numanistic antiquarians

Jud

Posted on Sunday, August 10th, 2008 at 6:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback