Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:04:55 -0500 (EST)
From: walter a davis <davis.65-AT-osu.edu>
Subject: Re: heidegger-AT-lists:  Being 




Yes, because otherwise we'd have to exist and we'd have to know that the
analytic of dasein is heidegger's most important and scary idea--the one he
fled and that we continue to flee. Far better a Seinsmystik--cause nobody'll
ever connect that to what they do in bed or in Afghanistan. At 08:36 AM
2/28/02 EST, you wrote:
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

>Content-Language: en
>
>Being.
>
>The question of being is not about: (a) man's simple existence or 
>'being-there in the world,' it is about: (b) aspects or modes of man's 
>existing or 'being there in the world,' as indicated and introduced by the 
>word BE and its various conjugates. The analytic of the predicational 
>substitute 'Dasein' is a fraud, which seeks to transpose (b) into (a.)  
>The truly farcical nature of this syntactical and semantic sleight of hand is 
>illumined by the simple sentential substitution of 'dasein' with 'that for 
>which it purports to deputize.' Heidegger's doctrinal interference with 
>semantics sets language to militate against the natural logic of the human 
>brain as expressed in grammatical coding.  The irrational and incoherent 
>intromission of the Daseinic device is no more than an enabler or excuse for 
>cheap psychology and gimcrack sociology using a ridiculous form of baby 
>language to put people off the scent - nothing more. Being and Time is an 
>infantile attempt to warp language in order to finagle a doctrinal position 
>using periphrasis together with a circumlocutious circus of verbial and 
>adjectival acrobatics.
>
>Contributions to this list often imply that the natural enchantment with the 
>wonders of the various phenomenia and existent things that surround us, and 
>our natural desire to understand the difference between the manner of 
>existing of these different things and the source or sources of those 
>differences is something that is the preserve of a coterie of 
>transcendentally orientated stipendiary sophisticates/philosophers. The lofty 
>attitude of certain members of this discussion group (for which this list is 
>well known) implies that the mysteries or esoteric knowledge (which Heidegger 
>implies antecedes analysis and is presumably God-given?) is a 'received' 
>largesse by me/us, rather than an 'achieved' understanding derived from the 
>psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning as achieved by 
>'them/those.' This particular piece of ubermenchish nastiness may be 
>derivational from Nietzsche?
>For these people the understanding of 'philosophy' is circumscribed to and 
>understandable by only an enlightened inner circle from which 'analytical' 
>thinkers are excluded and perceived perhaps as something rather like 
>troglodytic beasts in white coats who labour in the semi darkness of some 
>Platonic spelunk to maintain the machinery which sustains the denizens of the 
>upper world of fruitarian transcendentalists, and keeps them well-fed, 
>healthy and content, whilst they discuss more rarefied ideas whilst bathed in 
>the blinding light thrown forth from the blazing twin suns of the das 
>uberlegene Niveau.
>
>Mankind and the things that surround him are truly wondrous manifestations - 
>but I do not see them as mysterious phenomenia.  I can't bring myself to use 
>the word *beings* to delineate these things, for to me if the flawed word 
>'beings' must be employed then  *beings* only mean live organisms. 
>There is a natural desire to understand the difference between the manner of 
>existing of these different things and the source or sources of those 
>differences - but it is NOT the realm of PHILOSOPHY - for the MANNER or 
>BEHAVIOUR of humans and the WAY things exist is the field of enquiry for 
>sociologists, neuroscientists, biologists, anthropologists, astrophysicists, 
>and so on - in other words an examination into the  “the manner of living
out 
>of the lives,” of humanity presupposes a scientific investigation rather
than 
>a metaphysical philosophical contemplation of WHY?.  The metaphysical study 
>of the nature of being and existence for human beings consists as I see it of 
>two questions and two questions only:
>
>(a) Why is it that things either exist or do not exist?
>(b) In what manner do existing things exist?
>
>Question (a) was in my opinion only partly answered by Parmenides centuries 
>ago, in that things exist, and we cannot talk about the things that do not 
>exist. I would qualify this Parmenidean truism by saying that we CAN 
>productively talk about some things that do not exist, such as those 
>non-existent things which once existed and now no longer exist. I also think 
>that it is useful to be able to talk about things which do not exist and have 
>never existed, and indeed about those things that do not exist though some 
>people believe them to exist, if only that in the resultant discourse mankind 
>will progress to a better understanding of question (a) 
>
>As to question (b) The question of 'In what matter do existing things exist?' 
>demands a descriptional response which is best (though often imperfectly) 
>described by specialists who work in the various fields concerned with the 
>individual and social lives of the inhabitants of our planet, the nature and 
>history of our planet and the nature of the cosmos. What remains of parental  
>'traditional' philosophy, (now that its children have grown up and left home) 
>should be concerned with discussing the only area of enquiry that is left to 
>it – namely ethics.
> 
>It must therefore not be imagined that philosophical omphaloskepsis is the 
>reserve of transcendentalists for one of the most favourite occupations of 
>some analytical thinkers is a similar yearning for a union with the cosmos 
>and eternity that does not conflict with their rational attitude to people 
>and things and natural processes and laws of nature that govern them.
>
>Jud Evans.
>Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"

>Content-Language: en
>
><HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3>Being.
><BR>
><BR>The question of being is not about: (a) man's simple existence or
'being-there in the world,' it is about: (b) aspects or modes of man's
existing or 'being there in the world,' as indicated and introduced by the
word BE and its various conjugates. The analytic of the predicational
substitute 'Dasein' is a fraud, which seeks to transpose (b) into (a.)  
><BR>The truly farcical nature of this syntactical and semantic sleight of
hand is illumined by the simple sentential substitution of 'dasein' with
'that for which it purports to deputize.' Heidegger's doctrinal interference
with semantics sets language to militate against the natural logic of the
human brain as expressed in grammatical coding.  The irrational and
incoherent intromission of the Daseinic device is no more than an enabler or
excuse for cheap psychology and gimcrack sociology using a ridiculous form
of baby language to put people off the scent - nothing more. Being and Time
is an infantile attempt to warp language in order to finagle a doctrinal
position using periphrasis together with a circumlocutious circus of verbial
and adjectival acrobatics.
><BR>
><BR>Contributions to this list often imply that the natural enchantment
with the wonders of the various phenomenia and existent things that surround
us, and our natural desire to understand the difference between the manner
of existing of these different things and the source or sources of those
differences is something that is the preserve of a coterie of
transcendentally orientated stipendiary sophisticates/philosophers. The
lofty attitude of certain members of this discussion group (for which this
list is well known) implies that the mysteries or esoteric knowledge (which
Heidegger implies antecedes analysis and is presumably God-given?) is a
'received' largesse by me/us, rather than an 'achieved' understanding
derived from the psychological result of perception and learning and
reasoning as achieved by 'them/those.' This particular piece of ubermenchish
nastiness may be derivational from Nietzsche?
><BR>For these people the understanding of 'philosophy' is circumscribed to
and understandable by only an enlightened inner circle from which
'analytical' thinkers are excluded and perceived perhaps as something rather
like troglodytic beasts in white coats who labour in the semi darkness of
some Platonic spelunk to maintain the machinery which sustains the denizens
of the upper world of fruitarian transcendentalists, and keeps them
well-fed, healthy and content, whilst they discuss more rarefied ideas
whilst bathed in the blinding light thrown forth from the blazing twin suns
of the das uberlegene Niveau.
><BR>
><BR>Mankind and the things that surround him are truly wondrous
manifestations - but I do not see them as mysterious phenomenia.  I
can't bring myself to use the word *beings* to delineate these things, for
to me if the flawed word 'beings' must be employed then  *beings* only
mean live organisms. 
><BR>There is a natural desire to understand the difference between the
manner of existing of these different things and the source or sources of
those differences - but it is NOT the realm of PHILOSOPHY - for the MANNER
or BEHAVIOUR of humans and the WAY things exist is the field of enquiry for
sociologists, neuroscientists, biologists, anthropologists, astrophysicists,
and so on - in other words an examination into the  “the manner of
living out of the lives,” of humanity presupposes a scientific
investigation rather than a metaphysical philosophical contemplation of
WHY?.  The metaphysical study of the nature of being and existence for
human beings consists as I see it of two questions and two questions only:
><BR>
><BR>(a) Why is it that things either exist or do not exist?
><BR>(b) In what manner do existing things exist?
><BR>
><BR>Question (a) was in my opinion only partly answered by Parmenides
centuries ago, in that things exist, and we cannot talk about the things
that do not exist. I would qualify this Parmenidean truism by saying that we
CAN productively talk about some things that do not exist, such as those
non-existent things which once existed and now no longer exist. I also think
that it is useful to be able to talk about things which do not exist and
have never existed, and indeed about those things that do not exist though
some people believe them to exist, if only that in the resultant discourse
mankind will progress to a better understanding of question (a) 
><BR>
><BR>As to question (b) The question of 'In what matter do existing things
exist?' demands a descriptional response which is best (though often
imperfectly) described by specialists who work in the various fields
concerned with the individual and social lives of the inhabitants of our
planet, the nature and history of our planet and the nature of the cosmos.
What remains of parental  'traditional' philosophy, (now that its
children have grown up and left home) should be concerned with discussing
the only area of enquiry that is left to it – namely ethics.
><BR> 
><BR>It must therefore not be imagined that philosophical omphaloskepsis is
the reserve of transcendentalists for one of the most favourite occupations
of some analytical thinkers is a similar yearning for a union with the
cosmos and eternity that does not conflict with their rational attitude to
people and things and natural processes and laws of nature that govern them.
><BR>
><BR>Jud Evans.</FONT></HTML>
>



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