From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:14:58 EST
Subject: Subj: Re: heidegger-AT-lists. Unnatural Lingual Acts



--part1_110.de89538.29ac1f72_boundary
Content-Language: en

Subj: Re: heidegger-AT-lists. Unnatural Lingual Acts : -)  Date: 25/02/2002 19:
52: 44 GMT Standard Time From: borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com (John Foster)
Sender: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Reply-to:
heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

Jud: (previously) Shakespeare and most of the greats certainly used language
innovatively, but as far as I know they never deliberately falsified language
(as Heidegger the 'beingophile'  did) forcing and de-flowering innocent young
words into unspeakably grotesque syntactical positions during grossly
unnatural semantic acts in the overheated privacy of  his closet. ; -)

John here:

I am sure how it is possible to truthify language let alone falsify language
except in certain circumstances.  Niether am I sure how words can be
'de-flowered' and be 'innocent' or 'young'.

Jud here too: 
First let me remind you that any personal attacks upon me  such as yours will
be answered in the same vein. I suggest your re-draught the above sentence -
there may be a 'not' missing - there may 'not' be a 'not' missing? - rather
than dust off my crystal ball, I think it perhaps better if  you re-structure
it, for I would being doing you an injustice if I answered what I think you
are saying and you were in fact saying otherwise.

As to 'de-flowering, and 'innocent' and 'young' etc you must be the only one
on this list (if not the whole world wide web) who didn't twig that the whole
piece was a send up.  Read Allen's response - a man who (unlike you)
obviously has a sense of humour plus the wit to see it for what it was, and
to go along with the humour by adding a few witty  extras in the same vein
himself. How can a man like you pretend to understand the subtleties of
Heideggerian eisegesis if you can't even spot a lampoon when it rears up  and
bites you on the nose?

John: 
These expressions point to some 'generalization' about words having the
character of being persons with their own consciousness, suppliant to being
picked and invaded  sexually. The strictures against using words, and hence
language, in an inappropriate way, have their own life which arises from
societal convention and law. There are  'hate laws' and there are the formal
rules of grammar. I fail to see in any of the translations of Heidegger any
use of english in a strictly ungrammatical way, nor do I see any  use of
language by Heidegger of any words which would be profane, hateful or
unlawful.

Jud: 
You are once again making yourself a laughing-stock in front of your peers -
everyone can see the joke but you - whether they consider it a good joke or=20a
bad joke or in  bad taste or whatever is another thing entirely - but it is
patently and obviously a joke. Even the title  in the subject line had a
smiley in it for Christ's sake!  The fact that you failed to see through the
obviousness of my anti-Heidegger lampoon does not bode well for any other of
your interpretive or critical activities, whether it be  a Heideggerian text
or the script of a black and white version of a Laurel and Hardy comedy.  I
am the one who is well known for constantly railing against the
hypostatisation and reification of words, (particularly verbs and BE cluster
members. ) As regards Heidegger's ungrammaticality, or perhaps better put:
his 'unsemanticality' (another perhaps infelicitous neologism? ) at least in
the English translations of his  works - watch this space.

John: 
Of course I must qualify this by suggesting to the reader of this list to
actually review the hand written lecture notes of Heidegger which apparently
are often 'ungrammatical'  and sometimes funny for being . . . well
innovative. . . . . .

Jud: 
There are others - good German scholars - on this list far better fitted than
you or I to mark his ungrammaticalities. To an English speaker there are many
unacceptably and  sometimes laughable innovations, which are often not only
childish - but even babyish, and would not be out of place in a kindergarten
or nursery.

John:
I think the use of the term 'beingophile' is a pretty good example of
innovation but it is meant not in gramatico-philosphical sense - I suppose -
but in a slanderous manner  which relates to 'pedophiles' who 'deflower
innocent youths'.

Jud: 
Actually my reference was 'bibliophile, ' which I am myself, but it is indeed
interesting to see the strange way that your mind works.

John:
No need to moralize or pass judgement on this assertion by Jud here since his
style is 'against interpretation' and definitely unscholarly in the extreme.

Jud: 
All that I say about the chawbacon from the Black Forrest is by way of
interpreting his ideas and throwing light upon their basic inanity and
silliness. The whole tottering mess  that is his life-work is based upon a
childish misunderstanding of basic grammar - to which he admitted his
ignorance in writing, (see the infamous passage covered in my  'Konverzation
mitt Herr Heidegger' in the Heidegger List archives, ) Unscholarly? I
couldn't care a tupenny toss for scholars - most of them have never had an
original  thought in their head all their lives - they play unending circular
philosophical rondels upon a repetitive theme - they earn their bread (quite
legitimately and honestly) from  teasing and twiddling the great man's
pronouncements into fitting their own various plagiaristic interpretations,
hoping like hell to come up with something that will get them  noticed. As
far as I know nobody but me has actually come up with a linguistically based
philosophical theory regarding Heidegger that attacks him with the very words
that  he used - nobody has ever criticised him from the Grundbegriffe
upwards. I am still waiting to be presented with a counter-argument to my
analysis of BE, and the ramifications  for Heideggerianism. My challenge is
still there - but apart from a certain Doctor from Warwick, {who pulled out
claiming pressure of work } - nobody has had the courage to  confront them
head on with anything other than personal abuse. I am used to the arrogance,
to the sidestepping - the gleeful seizing upon small mistakes - one guy
ignored  my content and fastened upon a typo-error spelling of a Greek word=20-
and I am even used to guys like you, who lacking the usual skills,
misunderstand my writing. Do you  honestly think that anyone other than a
child would consider that I was serious when I referred to 'words' as being
capable of de-flowerment etc? Yes there are scholars and  'scholars. ' There
are some scholars and gentlemen on this list and I will not name them - they
know who they are=E2=80=A6

Jud: (previously)

Please keep writing your wonderful poetry boys and girls - I'm not here for
the philosophy anyway - just to lap up your extraordinary  way with words.

John:

Thanks for the compliments. . . . .

Jud: 
Sorry my old sausage, the compliments were not meant to include you, (a
glance at what you have written and the way you have written the above will
provide you with the reason for your exclusion)  I was thinking more of
Allen, Ken and Michael (when he's sober). : -)

John:
 I am not a boy any longer. . . . sigh. . . . and neither are any of the men
and women on this list. . . . . Now can we have some scholarly or artist 
appreciation?

Jud: 
You've got to earn it first old cock. As I said previously - I enjoy much of
the writing on this list - but I  tend now to follow Allen's advice and
listen to the music of the words rather than taking  them seriously.

Cheers,

Jud Evans.  AIT (analytical indicant theory)  uncouplingthecopula.
freewebspace. com



--part1_110.de89538.29ac1f72_boundary

HTML VERSION: