From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 15:58:22 EST
Subject: Dasein For Dummies.



--part1_ff.f6729b2.292ec0ee_boundary
Content-Language: en

John:
When the word 'is' is used it is meant to convey information in a logical
way.   A language which does not utilize logic does not require the use of
'is' or 'is not'. Is is redundant in a non- dialectical sense.


Jud:
Human Language IS logic. When we make statements employing the word 'is' or
'being' etc. we are making propositions about the states or modalities of the
subject.
Could you please post a few sample sentences [complete not elided] from your
illogical language or languages?


John here:
Oh really. You meant to say that every sentence ever wrote was logical?

blue...patch...above hibiscus

wide...beaping meteors...night

Where did I write 'is' or 'be'?

Jud:
I DO wish that you would address the TEXT before you type your answers.  If
you read the above sentences again you will see that I have written:
'When we make statements EMPLOYING THE WORD 'IS' OR  'BEING' ETC.

John:
I did not say that there has to be any sentences. I prefer clauses....Just
preceptions of what occasions...purely as phenomena....It is still
language....the use of a higher order language requires logical expressions
like 'is' or 'is not' or 'perhaps' and that is that. Either/or/and and but
are also examples of higher order languages. If I smile, that is a sign that
I am happy, and whether I say it or not if I only smile, this is most
convincing to any skeptic....

Jud:
But you said in your previous post that the word 'is' belongs in 'secondary
language,' and now you have changed and just said that: ' the use of a
'higher order language'requires logical expressions like 'is' or 'is not' or
'perhaps' and that is that'  You go on to say that the word 'is' only
functions in 'higher order' languages', like math, like directives, and
logical statements whether truthful or untruthful, opinions in short, as well
as in the 'attitudinal proposition. '
Don't you think that it's about time you make your mind up whether 'is'
belongs in your so-called 'secondary language' or your so-called 'higher
order language?'

John:
A phrase denotes a quality regarding a common thing. A series of phrases
about a common thing denotes some more qualities...there is no need to go off
too deep to figure out that a lot of language is used to describe
perception,feeling, and so on. You don't need any abstract ideas...

Jud:
By 'a common thing' are we to suppose that you refer to a thing of no special
distinction or quality; widely known or commonly encountered; average
orordinary or usual?  Are we to include your ' wide...beaping meteors' 
amongst the average or ordinary or usual?  BTW I can't find 'beaping' in any
of my dictionaries =E2=80=93 is it a 'common' Canadian word? But  are you not  living
in a semantic dream world, for all you are doing is to elide the subjects of
the sentences the 'there is' and the indefinite article 'a' and the definite
article 'the' remain there mentally in the fragment 'blue...patch...above
hibiscus: 'There is a blue patch above the hibiscus'    If you wish to wander
the earth like some latter-day Oscar Wilde talking in fractured phrases, then
you are perfectly entitled to do so  - though I can't see it being very
helpful to your career prospects, (what on earth does the management and
customers think about it?)  But in the privacy of your own bedroom it
shouldn't be too harmful I suppose, and you are perfectly free to carry on
with this strange habit.   In the meanwhile we are trying to conduct a
serious dialogue about the meanings of the words 'is' and 'being' and Dasein
for Heidegger,  and to try to discover why the use of the 'being' word and
the dasein word is so central to his philosophy, and not to discuss your
strange propensity for verbalizing in some weird, sequestered, truncated
auto-lingo

John:
In Heidegger's' 'Hermeneutics of Facticity' is an example of a
non-logicaldescription of his home...there is no reference to any abstract
ideas, or notions....and that was the simple riddle of the whole corpus of
Heidegger.

Jud:
I'm all for finding the meaning of simple riddles =E2=80=93 why not let us all in on
the answer? :-)

John:
In a primary language which is purely descriptive and phenomenal, the word
is has not validity, or use. When a language does not use logical
expressions, then it is a 'primary language', which expresses information
about anything, whether real, surreal, and imaginary.

Jud:
You are indeed a revolutionary!  You will need to furnish us with some
examples to back up your claims which are the most revolutionary I have ever
read.  What 'primary language' are you referring to?

John here:
The one that is used when you walk about when there is no one to argue with.

Jud:
Like I said your own PRIVATE language.  But we are NOT talking about PRIVATE
languages we are talking about the language of Heidegger and the way he used
and wrote it in the books of his that we are studying.  It is a shame,
because for a little while I thought that you might have something genuinely
interesting to contributE regarding dasein and being. What you describe is a
PRIVATE language not a PRIMARY language. So what you are claiming is that
your private language of truncated mumblings is superior to the great English
language, which is used for communication by billions of your fellow human
beings all over the world?  Haha! YOU are indeed a strange one! 


Jud:
I hope it's not English?

John:
Sure.I will avoid the word is or be just to prove it to you.

Jud:
The avoidance of the words IS or BE either by periphrasis or elision proves
nothing=E2=80=93 what exactly are you trying to prove?

Jud:
Have you published these what seem to be quite bizarre ideas anywhere on the
web? 

John:
The ideas are not original at all. Bertrand Russell has already wrote
extensivelyon this in the 'Inquiry into meaning and truth.' I would say that
is a primary reference...on the use of logical expressions?

Have you ever read any works by Russell? Have you read any Russell? This may
clear your concerns up...

Jud:
I think you are being a bit supercilious here =E2=80=93 but not wishing to flame I
will let that one pass.


Jud:
Let me get this quite clear - you are claiming that the word 'is' has no
validity or use?

John here:
Only if you want to argue, explain or describe something...the word 'is' is=20a
logical expression just like '=' in mathematics. There are only two 'material
equivalencies' here: either something is the case or it is not the case. But
this is also an arguement...why would I personally care if something was the
case or not....? Unless there was some doubt, or skeptical inquiry...but most
of our experience in the world is not really up for skeptical inquiry,
radical doubt, etc.

Jud:
I would suggest that you sit down and listen to some typical human discourse
[say two ladies talking on a bus for instance,] you will find that the
conversation is peppered with 'isses' from start to finish. Before you go too
far in your downgrading the importance of the BE word, you should know that
it is a word that appears in English more than ANY OTHER word in the
language: (39,175 instances in every million words of text =E2=80=93 compared with
its nearest rival HAVE at 12,458 per million.)  We are not dealing with one
of your one-off 'common' private words like ' beaping' here John - we're
talking SERIOUS numbers. :-)

John:
Therefore most our thinking, and verbal thought

Jud:
EXACTLTY what do you mean by 'verbal thought?

John:
=E2=80=A6lacks any use of 'is' or 'is not' or 'be'....all these expressions=20act like
operators in a natural dialectic which is used to argue or reason
symbolically...certainly the present tense 'is' rather than 'was' is an
arguement...don't you see that?

Jud:
Hahahah!   You're asking ME?  What do you think  I've been saying on this
list for the last two and a half years?

John:
When a memory is perceived we don't need to provide a running commentary that
this 'was' what happened to me or her or it, we already know intuitively that
the memory is past...so why use the word 'is' or 'was' when remembering?

Jud:
You are wandering further and further away from the point all the time.  Now
you are describing your own private mentalese language you use for
fantasising. Please let us adhere to the point of the discussion, which is
the English language as used in our communication with our fellows, and in
particular how Martin Heidegger used it in his writings.


John here:

Primates use the same 'primary' language that you use when you cannot argue
with me. Itis the same language.

 Jud:
Now we are entering into the world of monkeys and apes.  I have no wish to go
down this path unless you feel strongly that this monkey business  has a
particular significance and relevance to Heidegger. :-)

Jud:
Do you challenge the validity of the statement: 'George Bush is American.'
You are saying that he is NOT American?

John:
I am American. The reason is that I live in Canada. Canada is in North
America. America is named after an Italian geographer, therefore Bush is also
an American. Bush is no more American than I am even though I live in Canada
andam not a citizen of the US.

Whatwas/is your point?

Jud:
 I was addressing your pronouncement that I cast an incorrect formulation.
When I said that: ' Like most other things regarding aspects of 'BE'
Heidegger failed to detect that the words 'IS' and 'BE' and 'BEING' are
ontological individuators or ontological secenators which allow us to
separate and tease out individual or multiple existential modalities prized
from the matrix of the gesamtsumme.
You responded by saying that:The word 'is' belongs in secondary language.
 I was replying to you by saying that in a sentence such as: 'George Bush is
President of USA' and 'The apple is red' etc., that according to you the 'is'
must be invalid,  and that GB is not President and the apple is not red
because for you apparently,  this is framed in higher [not
'primary']language.


John:
Attencio Norte Americanoes we are not afraid of you....

Jud:
I don't understand the above =E2=80=93 did Heidegger say this?  I know that=20he seemed
to be not 'enamoured' of Americans and referred to them rather disparagingly.
:-)

Jud:
It is true that the possibility remains that due to some information, which
is not in the public domain that George Bush may NOT be American, or even
that the George Bush mentioned in the sentence is another George Bush to the
one that you think I refer to in thes entence. 

John:
Why do you insist on very elementary, childish, in fact, examples?

Jud:
Here I was making the point that because a sentence such as 'George Bush is
American' contains an 'is' doesn't necessarily say that the information is
correct.  I shall ignore this second example of ad homonym out of respect for
the other list members and continue.

Jud:
All this proves what I said earlier, that language is logic and statements
are in the form of propositions that may be true or untrue.  Any proposition
using the 'is, are, being' words is CHALLENGEABLE!  Any statement about any
existential modality of any entity is CONTESTABLE. If you believe that the
word is has not validity, or use in language then I suppose you are in favour
of scrapping the word?

John:
 I think that you have strayed a bit from the original point here. But I will
concede that now you are making some sense. It is funny - if as you say -
language is always logical, then how could any sentence be 'contestable' or'
challengeable'. It seems to me that you have contradicted yourself here
because in the beginning you claim that language is 'logic' and then soon
afterwards claim that language in the form of also 'contestable' and not
worthy of standing up to logic????

Jud:
I must say that I have never come across anybody like you before whose
attention wanders so much from the text before them. If you re-read it you
will see that I qualified my statements by saying:  'Any proposition USING
THE 'IS, ARE, BEING' WORDS is CHALLENGEABLE!  It must be pretty obvious by
now that in English we can make propositions in the most informal or  most
strictly formal manner. Please point out for my benefit, and for the
listmembers benefit where in my text have I said that: 'simpleor complex
sentences are not worthy of standing up to logic????'


John:
Maybe you could revise your claim that language is logic, and admit that
there are some sentences which are propositions, and also not logical, or
contestable....

Jud:
Dearie,dearie me! What I am saying and have been saying on this list and
other lists for the last two or three years is that sentences which include
the 'is'  word are logical statements or arguments or claims or opinions
about the existential modality or modalities of the subjects.

Examples:
The ball is blue.
John is Dora's husband.
A salmon is a fish.
King Bertil is the King of Sweden.
All of the above propositions are logically contestable and verifiable by
further investigation.

Jud:
This is all very curious and exciting and I can't wait to hear your
explanations.  Are you going to remove all the 'is' words from 'Being and
Time?'

John:
SorryJ ud. I am not capable of removing the words that someone else wrote and
published. I have no desire to amend the book as it exists, and neither do
Iwish to remove 'is' or 'being' from the English language....although I
suspect that there are some others on this list who aspire to remove all of
the words of Heidegger, even the 'is' words. I think that would be a terrible
error....

Jud:
So do I as a matter of fact - but for other reasons than you probably suspect.

Jud:
 If you plan to do that then what about the 'being' words which are the same
word in a different conjugation?  Do you plan to storm the Winter Palace and
the White House while you're about it?   Is Parliament safe? :-)

John:
I am not sure what the significance of these acts would result in other than
a laughter or possibly incarceration? It seems that you rely very much on
imagry of 'revolutionary aspirations' and this is a bit revealing for me
since I think you are attempting to be 'revolutionary' and to get a lot of
attention for your ideas. I have no aspirations of any sort like 'storming'
these hugely opulent and hideous edifices. That is my opinion since in a few
more days the Yantze, the Great Gorge, will be fully flooded, and future
generations will never see this sight. The winter palace can be rebuilt by
Tzars and Tzarinas who rely on slave labour. The White House too...Who cares
really about these edifices when the real million year-old-in the works
treasures are being destroyed for short-term profits?

Who really cares about 'political relations' and 'ideologies' ....anyway?

Jud:
My ideas are sufficiently well known on the web now,  that I can put away my
scaling ladders, grappling hooks and AK45s.  :-)


John:
The word 'is' only functions in 'higher order' languages, like math, like
directives, and logical statements whether truthful or untruthful, opinions
in short, as well as in the 'attitudinal proposition. '

Jud:
What you say interests me greatly for I have no idea that you took such an
AITist position in relation to math and logic.

John:
God.Now you are agreeing with me....

Jud:
Please don't drag God into it I've just recovered from a chest cold and have
no wish to contract a secondary infection.

 I have long been trying to establish a connection between 'is' and certain
mathematical functions.  You are the first Heideggerian to agree with me
-please post some examples. Back to language though - are you saying that in
a sentence such as:  'George Bush is the President of USA' and 'The apple
isred' etc., that the 'is' is invalid and that GB is not President and the
apple is not red?    If not, what exactly ARE you saying?


John:
Maybe it was in your presentation of the ideas. You were essentially in
agreement with much of the whole 'reason d'etre' for Heidegger going
public...I thought that I could see no difference in the two perspectives.

Ist gibst

Jud:
Heidegger  believed  in 'Being' -     I don't.
Heidegger  believed in Dasein =E2=80=93    I don't.
Heidegger  didn't understand  'is =E2=80=93 I do.
Heidegger  didn't  savvy 'being'  =E2=80=93  I do.
Heidegger  believed in  God   =E2=80=93      I don't.
Heideggeresteemed Hitler  =E2=80=93         I don't.

I enjoyed your post but there still remains the little matter of my
unanswered questions: re the Instauration of Dasein.  You said that meaning
of dasein is easy to answer, and that Dasein was the word that Kant used for
'existence'. You said that it was the correct word, but not fulfilled in a
meaning sense, but only abstractly.
I asked you 'What exactly do you mean by: 'It was the correct word, but not
fulfilled in a meaning sense, but only abstractly?''

The other question relates to Heidegger's so-called de-ontologisation of this
word' Dasein =E2=80=93 You said that what Heidegger achieved to 'de-ontologise' this
word and give it more substance, so that it becomes 'subjective' and real.
 I asked you to explain how he has 'de-ontologised' this word? What is the
nature of the 'substance' he has given it?  How has it become subjective and
real?

Cheers,

Jud.






--part1_ff.f6729b2.292ec0ee_boundary

HTML VERSION: