Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 12:50:58 -0700
Subject: Re: Language?


Henry.  yer right.  i was a bit crude.  forgive me.


>Robert, the above is very interesting.  I don't agree with
>your generalizations about Being, what?, or why?.


as i say.  i wish to be educated.  why don't you agree?


>let me give you a more complicated no:  there is no
>"new dimension of relatedness" in this particular mode
>of communication.  a techie would say that there is
>a new dimension.  actually, it is an even more difficient
>mode of relationship than even the telephone.


more miscommunication.  the mode is no doubt difficient if one just
cursorily considers my proposition.  what i'm saying is that this type of
communication "uncovers" what is already there.  that is relatedness. [i'll
re-read H's discussion of handicraft.  the hand.  and give you a more
familiar wording.]
so then the "viewing" of ascii characters on the screen is simply and
ultimately a device (read language) to *access*  being related.  the actual
mechanics of screen reading is quite secondary.


>Robert, i'd say you are offering crude and abusive similies, analogies,
>and metaphors about conversations you find uninteresting.  since i
>think your attempt to dispense with all "why?"s is wrongheaded,
>i'd only add from the above that you strongly hold your position,
>whatever it is.


Henry.  more miscommunication. (once again my apologies for the crudeness)
pls bear w/ me.  where did i say that we should dispense w/ "why?"  I said
just the other day that metaphyisically based thought can't be washed away
like some soil.  did i not?  i agree that "why" based thought is (i've said
this several times) very useful.  i am saying that "why" is falsely
worshiped as the inquiry that leads to "truth."  as the tradition bearso
out in de-construction.  "why" leads to more technologically based
manipulation.

my claim is that at philosophy's end.  or at it's completion.  a shift in
the ground of being is possible.  listen Henry.  i know that you like to
stick w/ SuZ.  BTW what do you suppose H's "turn" was all about?  is his
later work to be ignored.  should i not attempt to discuss it?  can you
consider for a moment that H evolved as his life measured thru?


>>I was getting to how that might work in you actual real world life.  like
>>how you interact with other real people the the real world.  would that
>>make a difference at least as great on sitting in your chair "thinking"
>>about Being.
>
>but you don't have a clue how i react in the actual real world.
>on this listserv, and what this listserv is dedicated to, we discuss
>heidegger's works.  you take a seminar from some werner erhart
>clones and all of a suddent have been processed into something 
>that claims some kind of heidegger-deriviative authenticity,
>and throw terms out form that experience, completely out of
>any context, and expect them to have some depth just cited.
>most often what you say completely confuses me and i have little
>idea what you mean.


Henry.  you know what i mean.  did H have a personal knowledge of your
life?  like on a personal level.  come on Henry.  SuZ makes sense to you
even tho H didn't come calling on you for tea to see for himself.  no?

please henry.  you are smarter than what you say about my background.  i've
not seen a seminar in many years as i've told you privately.  what you said
in that regard is a good example of traditional metaphysics in action.


Robert T. Guevara   | guevara-AT-rain.org
Electrical Engineer | guevarb-AT-mugu.navy.mil
Camarillo CA, USA   | http://www.rain.org/~guevara


     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---