From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:30:47 EST Subject: Presencing or Whatever. --part1_122.82028bc.29359847_boundary Content-Language: en These sentences appeared recently presumably from the keyboard of Jud: "Take for example the word 'presencing. ' The noun presence means: ' the state of being present or currently in existence' or ' 'the act of being present. ' . . . it is impossible to BECOME present" Michael spake thus: Of course, armed with the good and common (unphilosophical) sense that is present within the leaves of the dictionary, it is perfectly correct to say that 'presence' [is] something that can not become; it is also perfectly fine to employ this good and common sense within everyday speech and diverse converse. We take all this for granted; the common use of language as manifested within the pages of dictionaries and Fowler's Modern English Usage is a basis of our very community, which grants us the very possibility of rational (and irrational) speech and writing. We say "something is either present or not present (absent)": a binary situation, an either/or. Jud: You make good sense. Michael: Even in the Sartrean example of waiting for an (as yet) absent friend at an arranged meeting place, whereupon we seem to be in the presence of an absence -- the very absence of the friend is so close so present to us, it feels like being in the presence of the absence of a presence -- it does not come across, manifest itself, as a neutral not-present (we say under all this to ourselves "she is coming, just not here yet". Jud: Whatever you feel emotionally about the absence of your friend does not change the import of the words. Michael: Even then, when absence can appear to be a presence (of the absent and absenting being), we cannot actually say in the quotidian circumstances of the date to the patient waiter "she is neither present nor absent". But, but, there is some community between the states of absence and not-yet-present; a tension exists here. Jud: Again your bathetic state though interesting has nothing at all to do with the meaning of the words. Michael: But we, here, on the List, have inherited the oft mentioned extra-ordinary Leibnitzean question "Why is there something rather than nothing? " Jud: The Leibnitzean question "Why is there something rather than nothing? " is not exclusive to this list but I see what you mean. Michael; We have also inherited the (Greek) notion of being as being-present, as presence; the beings (that are) are present, either actually (here, now), potentially, or necessarily. What is, is present, might be present or must be present. Jud: Anything that exists is present somewhere in the cosmos. Michael: To be is to be present; Jud: 'To be' is the infinitive of the verb BE and it has the semantic meaning 'to achieve a state of' As in: 'I want to be a fireman' (I want to achieve a state of being a fireman.') and so: To be present' is to achieve a state of being present.' Michael: Thus being is presencing [please, don't immediately recoil in familiar horror at this admittedly horrible formulation, Jud]. Leibnitz's question can be seen to display an extreme tension between being (something) and not-being (nothing). Jud: An entity can BE something [in an existential modality of something]. 'Michael is a composer and being a composer he gets his music paper at a special cut price.' Michael: Hamlet's question emphatically expresses that tension in "To be or not to be. . . " Can we in both cases perhaps detect (because they are questions, genuine questions) the suspicion that only something that is (some being) can not-be? Jud: First to Hamlet's 'To be or not to be. . . " Syntactic elements require or specifically necessitate a verb or other lexical unit. Thus the valiancy of BE includes an unspoken subject (Am I [or is one] to be or not to be=E2=80=A6' and an object (alive). An element which is required is an obligatory valent; one which is specifically permitted but is not required is an optional valent.. In this case 'alive is an optional valent - thus the word alive can be elided for purposes of scansion and still be meaningful. As to whether or not only something that exists cannot exist? Only a light that is switched on can be switched off? That is an interesting and amusing question. I would answer that an entity either exists or it does not exist=20=E2=80=93 if it does not exist then even to employ the term IT {The thing named or in question] in relation to a non-existent non-entity is inadmissible. If an entity exists and then ceases to exist then it only ceases to exist IN ITS PRESENT FORM following that its material returns to that great ousia bank ready for the next withdrawal. So I will turn your question on its head and say: Only that which exists can exist. Michael: And conversely, only what is-not (but has been) can be (something)? Jud: Here you are agreeing with my suggestion =E2=80=93 only that which is has existed in a certain form can adopt another form. Michael: Similarly, we could suppose, only something present can be absent: something simply not-there is neither present nor absent (something absent either was once present or might be present or must be present sometime). Jud: Not for me I'm afraid =E2=80=93 only something present can be present - that is not to say that something that is present could be at some time in the past or in the future absent. The missing component is of course present WHERE? Present in the Coca Cola tent at the Lancashire Fair, or present in the cosmos as an existing entity. Absent from WHERE? From school or from the Planet Earth? Michael|: [An aside not meant to be taken tooooo seriously, but. . . it is entirely possible to argue that the invention (oops, sorry, discovery) of the positron was borne from something like the way the promenader waiting for his continuingly absent date could formulate his date's absence as a kind of negative presence (of the electron, in the particle example).] Jud: The scientists had already worked out the probable existence of the positron in theory =E2=80=93 once that had the synchro-cyclotron they were able to confirm their suspicions by a positive sighting. Michael: Always already arising from nothingness the being is; it remains present, resisting absence. Jud NO! Entities NEVER arise from nothing =E2=80=93 that is a biblical fallacy. Matter reforms from already existing matter, Michael: Being is always the being of some being. Jud: Existing is always the existential experience undergone of existents. Michael: As living human beings, we are only as human beings; to not be human beings, we can die or we can become non-human. Jud: Dying and becoming non-human is the same thing. When we die we lose the 'I' or the 'WE' and become 'IT' again. Michael: To be human, to be a human being, we can resist suicide Jud: Those that don't die and lose their 'I' to become an 'IT.' Michael: And we can resist brutality/godliness/catatonia (all these paths for humans to become non-human, viz, animal/divine/mineral/etc, in extremis, I mean. .=20. ). Jud: I don't understand this section. Michael: Being is resistance of presence to absence. Jud: Only for those that are aware of the dynamic. Most people simply exist without thinking about nemesis. Heidegger teaches that an unawareness of death detracts from the ability to appreciate life etc. The party-pooper - the bucket of cold water at the party figure. Michael: Such resisting is partly what might be meant (philosophically) by "presencing" and is a part answer to Leibnitz and Hamlet in the question of being. But it is not commonsense and cannot be so. Jud: A fanciful conjecture but your basic intelligence and commonsense has rejected it =E2=80=93 Bravo! Michael: This is somewhat unsatisfactory to me but the best I can do for now, but something is coming, something is presencing. Jud: Better close the windows - it might be that old werewolf from Freiburg, Michael: Furthermore, Jud comes up with: "A person or thing cannot 'presence' itself but only 'present' itself. " Jud, if a thing presents itself, is this some continuous process (presencing)? or a sudden irruption from some state of absence or non-presence? Jud: No, the present continuous form of 'present' is presenting' as in the sentence: 'Michael is presenting the prizes to the winners of the Heideggerian Grammar Society.' (Two blows on a ragman's trumpet.) Michael: How, in general, does presentation of beings occur? Jud: 'Ladies and gentlemen I have great pleasure in presenting our gust for this evening - a big hand for=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6Omar bin Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayden!' Michael: Something (present) arises/replaces/emerges/etc (from) something (absent). Jud: Hahaha! No, no,no. There can be no intermediary phase =E2=80=93 no arising=20=E2=80=93 replacing =E2=80=93emerging =E2=80=93 a thing is either present =E2=80=93 or not present. Michael: Are all beings resisting nothingness? Jud: A stone couldn't give a tinker's cuss one way or the other. As for animate beings most do except for suicides (and that includes 'slow suicides' like druggies and smokers and alcoholics and fatties etc] and then the religious fanatics of course. Michael: Is that resistance a part of being itself, Jud: There is no such thing as 'Being.' You can say LIFE if you wish? Yes, in general I would say that most animate beings do what they can to avoid death. Michael: A part of every being for it to be rather than not be? Jud: To be alive rather than not to be alive =E2=80=93 yes. Michael: Is nothingness, for that matter, resisting being a being, becoming something? Jud: No =E2=80=93the unborn child (unconceived) does not resist being born. Michael: Is this polemos, this mutual resistance and even conflict, what makes things be present and absent? Jud: Depends what you mean by 'present' and absent' Present WHERE? Absent from WHERE? Michael; Such a contest could be named by some neologist (in an effort to think rather than worry too much about mere correct grammar or politically correct linguistic usage) "presencing and absencing" to convey what commonsense and common-science can not. . . ? Jud: Sure =E2=80=93 you could adopt it as part of your private language to say under the bedclothes to your fellow Heideggerians =E2=80=93 but once you get out of bed and start talking to the populace they'll mark you down as some kind of nutball. Michael: ". . . and I loving you. . . " [Beatles, mid-period] Jud: OH! My heart fluttered for a brief delicious moment =E2=80=93 Ah well =E2=80=93 you can't win em' all Jud: G'nite. (Sent unchecked because of the hour) --part1_122.82028bc.29359847_boundary
HTML VERSION:
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005