File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2001/heidegger.0103, message 54


From: "Jud Evans" <Jud-AT-sunrise74.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Re: ...haven't got the time time...
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 14:57:33 -0000


----- Original Message -----  From: "Michael Pennamacoor"
<pennamacoor-AT-enterprise.net To: <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Sent:
Wednesday, March 21, 2001 7: 58 PM Subject: Re: . . . haven't got the time
time. . .

a-part-ing one:

Jud spake thusly, and at long last he spake with some decent (and indecent)
questions which I shall attempt to answer at some length (perhaps in a
series) when I have the time time : -)

Michael the Mystic Mountaineer quoth:

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?

Michael:
Firstly, verbalising [sorry] nouns comes, for me, from the very material in
hand itself and is of the essence, so to speak.

Jud:
First of all I would remind you that we are discussing your 'activation'
[making verbs] of ABSTRACT nouns, which is quite different  from verbalising
ordinary substantives. For example it is quite acceptable to form the word
"dogged" from the word "dog" in the  sense of "go after with the intent to
catch. " What I am curious about is why you continually find it necessary to
form verbs out of  ABSTRACT nouns?

"This present is the gift of the presencing of what presents [presences] it
self. "

In the above sentence for example the sense is that the subject of the
sentence *This present* is the 'gift' of the very process  whereby the
subject presences itself. Now what is suggested here is that the abstract
concept *this present,* which by the use of the  "this, " (contrasted with
that) refers to the thing nearer to hand, or more immediately in mind -
meaning that you are referring to the  immediate present, sometimes
indicated by the word "now. "

So we end up with the import that:

'Now is the 'gift of the way that now 'nows' itself. ' Perhaps you would
like to explain how 'now, ' 'this present, ' or the present moment, '  first
of all came into the possession of its own quality whereby it is in the
position of making a gift of itself to a human being such as  you or I, and
what state remains of it after dispossessing itself of its nowness?
In the sense that the giving a gift is a human act of love or respect or
duty, why and how can the abstract concept of the  'process of presencing'
decide to give a gift to a huaman being?

You speak of 'essence' but there is no such thing as 'essence, ' which is a
medieval monkish twisting and deformation of the Latin  word 'esse.' So in
fact what you just said was: " making verbs out of nouns comes, for me, from
the very material in hand itself and is of the 'isness, ' so to speak. "
Analysed the construction comes out as:

'Verbalising substantive abstractions comes from the very material of the
non-existent abstractions 'in hand' and is of the isness, so  to speak. '

Now I wouldn't blame you for having difficulty in understanding this
analysis, and it may provide an example for you of how difficult it is  for
others to understand your statements.  One is tempted to ask what do you
mean by the essence [isness] of an abstract noun. For example - what is the
'essence' of  freedom? Which particular freedom will you choose to endow
with this essence? I think that you will agree that there are so many
versions of freedom to choose from that it may prove more difficult than you
imagine. Which ever version you choose will in all  probability be opposed
by those that hold to a different version.  A devout Moslem woman's version
of freedom differs from that of a liberated western women for example.

Michael:
It is not a quirk of non-standard English or some kind of poetising or
mysticality or an inability to speak/write standard English. It is the very
ex-pression of my thinking or attempts at such. Why this pressing need to
"construct simple verbal particle phrases [or gerundial constructions] out
of abstract nouns" (and,  of course, my propensity to hyp-hen-ate) will
become apparent below; but now for some think [sic] completely the same. . .

Jud:
The hyphenisation comes across as an amusing attempt to draw the reader's
attention to the etymological roots of the word/concept, which  may have
been necessary for the Nazi bone-heads the lecture rooms of Freiburg, but
the modern average educated reader is very aware of the  etymological
building blocks of language, as has no need of this constant and irritating
didacticism - it gives the impression that the  writer is treating his
readership as little children and could even be construed by some as
arrogance.

Jud:
1. How does 'time' time itself? How does 'nothing' nothing itself?

Michael:
A1. time times in the same sense that beings are and space spaces. . . it is
a reference to the hard to grasp (because ungraspable) in everyday English,
that time, being space et al are something like 'processes' (and that is not
at all correct because processes are once again conceived as things, as
beings, and can thusly be spoken of as nouns, as names of things, as beings
in the sense of already givens, as ultimately data. . .

Jud:
I realise that I am dealing with a fine mind when I am communicating with
you Michael. I realise that you have sensitive feelings and  thoughts about
the world [cosmos] around you, and like the rest of us you are trying to
understand and make sense of it all.  I do think however that you are
unnecessarily complicating, and perhaps unconciously exaggerating the
difficulties involved in  describing the phenomena that surrounds you with
the clarity of straightforward English, and that sadly this has the effect
of trivialising  some very profound ideas and creative conceptual
innovations that you have to share with us. The fact that beings exist is
not a  complicated concept to consider, contemplate, or think about - nor is
it a difficult thing to describe in normal language. Space doesn't  'space'
for it is not capable of activity - in a sense it provides a 'hosting' the
activity of entities such as molecules or planets and  stars and rockets -
but even my deliberate illustrative choice of the word 'hosting' is a
misnomer, for 'hosting' is a gerundial verb form  that space is no more
capable of enacting than it is of 'dancing' or 'being. '

Michael:
Time is nothing in the sense that it is not a thing.

Jud:
I agree and therefore it cannot "time itself. " nor can putrescence putrefy
itself,  for to talk that way is to talk in self referential circles.
Putrescence is a mode or state of putrefying flesh - a quality of something
rotting and becoming putrid. A quality cannot qualify itself,  for it is
already the result of a qualification by another subject. Freedom cannot
free itself only the subjects of nonautonomy can do  that.

Michael:
Time as the ever-present present is nothing in that it is not *what* it is,
since it is over already. . . or not yet.

Jud:
An action can never be over and not yet over at the same time.  You cannot
be across the road and crossing the road at the same time.  Time is nothing
as you say and non-things cannot be anything - over or not over or anything
else.

Michael:
Even in the scientific hard-man frame, time is seen as a framework along
with space within which beings appear and events come to be as they are. . .
thus no thing itself. Time is defer-ment,  holding-out.

Jud:
Firstly, I don't see men/women of science as being 'hard men/women but on
the contrary I see them as having a breadth of vision, of  adventure, of
courage and pragmatism which is generally lacking in the transcendental
community which is hide-bound in dead  ideas and stale unproductive cul de
sacs.  Men of science have taken what appears to humanity as a
tri-dimensional unity of past, present and future and divided it up in order
that the affairs of man can be regulated in keeping with the rotation of the
earth and the seasonal location of the earth in its orbit  around the sun.
It is a convenient device - and a very necessary one, and our use of the
clock gives the impression of tri-dimensionality of time.  Philosophically
however the reality is quite different - for there is only a seamless
continuance of the present. The past does not exist  other than in the human
memory and in books and other media which is accessed in the present. When
things are forgotten - even  the illusion of them as past happenings
disappears. As an aside, it is a curious point to consider that some clerics
argued that verbs  have three persons, which is a demonstration of divine
inspiration, by virtue of its relation to the Holy Trinity. : -)

Jud: 2.
Why should it do this?

Michael:  A2.
"Time times" does not say that 'time' is both the subject and predicate of
some statement. It says that time is timing, that time is not a thing that
does something, that acts, that activates.

Jud:
When you say that: "time is timing, " you are presenting it again as a
subject and a predicate. And I must ask you this: "If time is timing  what
is it timing? " If fire is [firing] burning what is it burning - it is
burning some material -wood, oxygen etc - it is certainly NOT burning fire,
and in the  same way time cannot be timing time. This illustrates well the
fact that what[the illusion] of time times is CHANGE in the modalities of
existence of THINGS - in this case the orbit of one thing around another -
the earth around the sun.

Michael:
Time does not do anything. Time is the -ing in be-ing, the -ing in
presenc-ing, the stay-ing in what stays and remains.

Jud:
But you have just said above that "time is timing" now you say that it
doesn't do anything - make your mind up. : -) The sense that the -ing of
be-ing which is the signifier of the present continuous tense of the verb
"to be, " is a concept that I like - it's neat,  but the logic of it is,
that as there is only the ever-present present, the condition must also
extend to the past and future illusions too -  hence: Time is the -ing of
"was be-ing" and "be-ing and "will be be-ing. " Thanks for that idea
Michael.

Michael:
If a being is anything that is, then such a be-ing is hold-ing itself out
against both non-being (nothing) and some other being
(difference): this holding-out is not nothing and is not a thing, but time.
. .

Jud:
I am very, very suspicious of  phrases like "holding itself out"  or
"appears as"  or "seems like" or "presents the appearance of"  for they are
examples of old wily-pants  Heidegger's circumlocutions in place of "is" or
'Being,' [like Dasein is a device to escape the grammatical dopple-ganger]
What in effect "holding itself out" means is "is" so the real [though
hidden] meaning of your sentence is:  If an entity exists as any kind of
entity that exists, then it is non-equivalent with non-existence and some
other entity. This  non-equivalence is time. Looked at this way I think that
whilst it was a brave effort - the metaphor doesn't work.

Jud:
3. How [assuming that 'time' exists] does it display this information?

Michael:
A3. Do you mean to ask how the timing of time appears to us? Surely in the
phenomena of the having been and the not yet to be; the present as the only
time there is (your thesis) holds together the has-been and the not-yet in
the tension of the present itself, collects and disperses the passing of the
passed and the becoming of what comes-to-be; in psychological terms, memory
and anticipation.

Jud:
I accept that as a fair description of mankind's psychological apprehension
of time as opposed to a thought-through philosophical  explanation of time
as a continuum.

Jud:
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?

Michael:  A4.
As I have already suggested, any thing can be read as thing-ing, as holding
itself against being nothing (not being) and some thing else (being other);
thus any noun as representing some thing can be interpreted as occluding an
'activity', a be-coming, a standing-out, etc

Jud:
But a 'thing' does not and cannot "hold itself out" or "in" or "roundabout
the houses" as a non-equivalence.  It is in the mind and judgement of the
OBSERVER that any non-equivalence can be detected or imagined.  A tin can or
a fire-hydrant has no idea of its non-equivalence which a rose or a cup of
tea.  The only 'activity' inherent in an entity such as a tin can, a
fire-hydrant or a rose is the seething molecular activity taking place in
the  metal of the can and the fire-hydrant and the additional cellular
activity in the case of the rose.

Michael
(re-minds me of Nietzsche's objection to Darwinism: that a species (a
successful example of evolutionary success) is only a very slow moving
changing, not a final result. . . and therefore not properly a successful
end).

Jud:
I suppose it can be considered as a success as far as the stage of
development it has arrived at 'to date. '  Old Nietzsche would have a long
long wait on his hands if he waited for the finished teleological final
product to fall into the basket at  the end of time's production line - for
time is constant change and exchange of material and energy in an infinite
twenty-four hour barn-dance of changing partners.

Michael:
Basically, to the extent that a noun denotes some eternal essence, some
thing, such an implied end-point can be seen as hiding a holding-out against
non-being and not-being, and thus a do-ing without a doer, an action without
an actor, a holding without a be-holder. . .

Jud:
To 'denote' means 'to have as a meaning - be a sign or indication of - and a
noun does not contain this meaning for two reasons.
1. There is nothing 'eternal' about an apple.
2. There is nothing 'eternal' about the noun apple.
3. The material/energy of which the actual apple [rather than the
noun-signifier - the 'word' apple, ] is constructed could be said to be
eternal. When the sun explodes and there are no more apples perhaps
humankind will have fled to another home and taken apple  trees with him -
but there will come a stage eventually  in the far reaches of the changing
cosmos that men and apples and the name apple will  be no more, and in that
event there will be no eternal 'essence' [isness] of apples or the alphabet
to compare with nothing.
4. Because of 3. there is no 'end point' for this material/energy as a
static  assemblage of material/energy that can 'held out' against non-being
and not-being, and  non-being and  not-being do not exist anyway.
5. There can be no doing without a doer. There is no such thing as doing,
which is merely a panoptic word for specific verbs of action.  You do not
"do" the lawn - you mow the grass, water the flower beds, rake the leaves
and weed the sides of the pathways.  It is impossible to have an action
without an actor - a show without a caste - a car trip without a car or
trippers.  It IS possible to have a 'holding' without an observer however -
a Punch and Judy show without an audience. It  is sad to contemplate such a
'holding' without children's laughter -  but it is possible.

Michael:  An other episode in time (presently, must eat)

I look forward to your next episode.  cheers,

Jud:




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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005