From: "Jud Evans" <Jud-AT-sunrise74.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Re: ...haven't got the time time...
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:34:24 -0000


----- Original Message -----  From: "Michael Pennamacoor"
<pennamacoor-AT-enterprise.net To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Sent:
Wednesday, March 21, 2001 8: 12 AM Subject: Re: . . . haven't got the time
time. . .

Michael the Mystic Mountaineer quoth:

Jud the Juddhist : -) managed this recently:

Michael:
Well no, almost everywhere: presencing is the point; our con-gress
is at radically differing times, so to speak; the presencing of what is
present

Jud:
There is no 'presencing' because there is no 'presenter. ' : -)

Michael:
presencing [is] with-out a 'presenter' {I accept the scare-quotes}

Michael:
(a being), the timing of what times

Jud:
Nothing 'times' in this connection. You could say that a stop-watch 'times'
a race however. : -)

Michael:
nothing times except time [itself]; a stop-watch [what a curious word] times
nothing; time [is] nothing. . .

Jud:
It seems you have a curious propensity or irresistible tendency to construct
simple verbal particle phrases [or gerundial constructions]  out of abstract
nouns.  May I ask some questions about this groundbreaking substantive
activation trend?

1. How does 'time' time itself? How does 'nothing' nothing itself?
2. Why should it do this?
3. How [assuming that 'time' exists] does it display this information?
4. Can you initiate this activation of ALL abstract nouns in English in the
way that you do with time, being, present, event?  For example can beauty
beautify the beautiful when to be  beautiful is an infinite completed
action? Can 'presencing' presence something that is  already in the infinite
mode of being present? Can winning win something that is already won?
5. If it can't be done to ALL abstract nouns - why not and what is the
mechanism for this?
6. Is your peculiar topiariological trimming of English into this fantastic
riot of morphological shapes accepted by other cult members  as a legitimate
methodology of exposition and communication?
7. Do you have Heidegger to thank for this?
8. How much do you think that Heidegger's German was responsible for this
strange neologistic activity and assaults on English  syntax and semantics?
9. Is it your opinion that the standard syntactical arrangement of English
is inadequate to describe the Heideggerian world view?
10. If so why?
11. Some would say that the creation of this ersatz private language is no
more than a device to hide from the syntactical and semantic analysis of
standard English - how would you respond to that accusation?

Michael:
(the difference), the be-ing of beings (being) -- are the same.

Jud:
There is no 'Being' of beings. Human beings exist or they do not exist. : -)

Michael:
Being [is] not a being; beings can not be with-out being (this or that
being); being [is] not existence. . .

Jud:
 If 'being' is not existence, why use the English verb of existence ['to
be'] to describe it?  If 'being' is not existing what is it?  If existing is
not a requirement of 'being' how can things 'be' that do not exist.  If
'being' and existence are different, does this mean that a being can 'be'
and exist at the same time?  Is 'being' dependant on existence?  Is
existence dependant upon 'being? ' Can a being exist and be at the same
time - if so does this mean that in your world we exist or 'be' twice at the
same time?

Michael:
The future and past are not "manmade fictions of convenience" any more than
the present is;

Jud:
Something that doesn't exist is a fiction. The past and the future don't
exist therefore they are fictions. : -)

Michael:
[slap] this time time you missed the point; read the above again; truth and
falsity are both irrelevant to revelation, and any way need each other,
be-long to one another;  fictions are (beings) too. . .

Jud:
1. What is 'revelation? '
2. Is Popeye a 'being? '
3. Is the attack of the pirates on Peter pan and the Lost Boys a 'being? '
4. Is the Nazi fiction of Aryan superiority a 'being? '
5. Are your own fictions a 'being? '
6. Do all Heidegger cult members accept that fiction is a being?
7.Spake the prophet Heidegger that fictions are beings?
8. Are the Gods of the pagans beings?

Michael;
but the present (as the presencing of what presents itself)

Jud:
The present can't present itself it is merely an abstraction a noun word.


Michael:
talking about the present not the word "present"; the present [is] a
presencing of what presents itself (an appearance of some thing, a
dis-covery, an event eventualising, a birth [talking about my generation. .
. ], etc)

Jud:  Why have you suddenly decided that you cannot activate [change the
noun to a verb of mood or action] the noun 'present' [any  continuous
stretch of time including the moment of speech] in this particular
construction, when you do this with other nouns such as  'presence' with
effortless equanimity? What is different in the different senses of the two
words [present and presence] which renders your usual  grammatical
impingements inapplicable or inappropriate in this particular case?

Michael:
is the 'site' for the presencing of the past (as what has been) and the
future (as what will be);

Jud:
Are you suggesting that 'the present' is a physical or abstract position in
relation to the surroundings of the cosmos where the past 'returns?'
The 'past' is recalled as a memory by memory - there is no such thing as
'will be.'

Michael:
what has been is not just or at all present in the re-call of memory
(especially if this is construed as a psychological facility) -- Jan's
arche-ological remains, the terminal moraines of the passed and passing. . .

Jud:
My [AITian] philosophy extends this much further indeed, in the sense that
our left-over biological moraines and the debris of all entities exist
forever in a  molecular/energetic, timeless, transpositional embrace.

Michael:
I shall die is a 'will-be'

Jud:
'Will be' is a contrivance of cognitive convenience, for you will die in the
present and be buried [cremated] in the present.  There is only present -
there is no past or future which are fictions [but not 'beings'] :-)

Michael:
the very winking blinking of moment-ness, the a-eternal of what
differentiates one moment from the next, the very nextness and be-foreness
of the next and the be-fore.

Jud:
 I accept that as [a poetic] a description of the present continuum.

Michael;
[slap] please do not patronise me; it is not to be dismissed as 'poetic';
rubbish it may be, but that needs to be demonstrated by some cute thinking
not cut-throat 'compliments';  my language above is absolutely precise, it
needs to be read (if only to be critiqued properly and thoroughly) : -)

Jud:
I think that you are being ungenerous here Michael. Your statement above is
written in a non-standard form of whimsical English which the  average
person would immediately identify as a form of poetry. I am sure that most
of the people on this list would agree with my  observation. However I hope
that your desire for 'a thorough critique' will be reflected in your reply
to my above observations and questions, and you will respond in a like
spirit and manner in clear unadulterated English?

Michael:
The present, in this sense, gives time.

Jud:
Words can't 'give' anything. : -)

Michael:
[slap] see above about words; the present is a gift with-out a giver.

Jud:
No gift is without a giver. To give entails the transfer of the possession
of something concrete or abstract to somebody else. We can speak
metaphorically and say something like:  "The beauty of nature gives us
pleasure."   but we are aware that the sights, smells, textures and sounds
of nature  that we subjectively enjoy, are already there, and have not been
'created' or 'developed by nature' for OUR benefit at all.  Nature is not
beneficent INTENTIONALLY. The felicitous [for SOME humans] balance of nature
is [or  can be] very infelicitous for rats or head-lice.

Michael:
And I've run out of time.

Jud:
Then you must be dead? : -(

Michael:
only what lives and makes time [perrrrrrlllllease do not take this
literally] can run out of time or lose time

You know, Jud, that the [slaps] are just friendly southern banter, don't you
: -) and calls to attention. . .

Jud:
Isaiah. 50: 6.   I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that
plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.

bye for the present continuum

Jud.







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