Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 09:53:04 +0000
Subject: Re: Martin Heidegger the intellectual mentor of the left
From: "Michael Pennamacoor" <pennamacoor-AT-enterprise.net>


> THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3096957184_584669_MIME_Part

Good Evans wrote recently, quoting Michael Eldred:

In a message dated 18/02/2002 21:27:00 GMT Standard Time, artefact-AT-t-online.de writes: 


Subj:Re: Martin Heidegger the intellectual mentor of the left 
Date:18/02/2002 21:27:00 GMT Standard Time 
From:    artefact-AT-t-online.de (Michael Eldred) 
Sender:    owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu 
Reply-to: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
<mailto:heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> 
To:    heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu 


Supposing that womanliness is a way in which truth holds sway, then the 
sway of truth itself becomes a question along with the apparently 
self-evident difference man/woman on which feminism is so stridently 
based. 

Nietzsche says in the Preface to JGB that "every kind of dogmatism [in 
philosophy] is standing there today in a sad stance lacking courage. If 
it is still standing at all!" 

The lack of courage is the failure to take a stand in defined truth when 
truth itself, i.e. its holding sway, becomes a question. Truth's holding 
sway both holds up human being in a stance, i.e. allows it to stand _as_ 
human being, and brings it to sway indefinitely, indefinably in 
resonances which one cannot quite put one's finger on. 

Only when we are barely still standing can be begin to learn to rethink 
what metaphysics has left us standing with. 

Commenting thus:




"That's another fine mess you've got me into Stanley! 

"Oh Ollie - I didn't mean to... Boo-hoo-hoo" 

"It's no use crying over spilt milk Stanley - and stop swaying as if you were going to
topple over at any moment. 
Stanley!  Stanley! You come here at once and let me smell your breathe! - I GUESSED  it -
Hmmmmmmmm Hummm!  You've been at the metaphysics again - I should have known as much - put
that bottle down IM-mediately  and remember - Lord knows I've said it often enough - the
tax-payer is paying for all this  - God help him!"  (sigh.) 

"Oh Ollie!  Boo-hoo, Here comes the University Trustees - it was you who suggested we
pushed this silly rubbish in the first place! 
 
"Oh!   That's torn it - I'm sure they've seen through us  -  I'm off!"  

"Ollie!  Ollie! Wait for me!  Don't leave me to face them...." 

"Well it just serves you right - what ever did you think the public  are - morons?" 


'Sons of the Desert' 19__?



Ha.

Well, methinks that sometimes one who ridicules (often, and, seemingly, as a pathetic
excuse for failing to provide a critique or other civilised discourse with) an other,
should sometimes be enabled to witness the tour of babble erected and extant in their own
public garden, e.g:

"....BUT, and this is the crucial point here, once we introduce the AIT notion of the
Modal Switch, this distinction proves not to be cut and dried. This is seen when you
introduce a sentence like "Carl XVI Gustaf is eating the apple. " This would be analysed
as follows: 
"Carl XVI Gustaf' <Extantal Imbuant 'is' <Modal Processant 'eating' <Modal Informant 'the
apple' <Extantal Objectant" 
Here, the Extantal Objectant serves to establish that the apple is the object to which the
Imbuant is referred, in such a way that the mode of existence of the Imbuant is also that
of the Objectant. 

This means that a *substitution* can also occur in this case, to give "The apple is being
eaten by Carl XVI Gustaf." Here, the mode of existence is transformed from active to
passive with regard to the switched Imbuant, in order to preserve the original relation
wherein the Objectant is referred to the Imbuant. 
Thus, the *substitution* at work within the identity statement can be seen as a particular
form of Modal Switch. The difference is that with the substitution of "Carl XVI Gustaf is
the King of Sweden, " to "The King of Sweden is Carl XVI Gustaf," the original relation is
preserved with no resultant change from active to passive tense. 
It is the difference between these two forms of Modal Switch that is important here. 
This is because, in any form of identity statement, the Modal Informant consists of an
Extantal Objectant alone. The Processant, in this case 'is,' only has to perform its
standard function of initiating a separable pertaining correspondence between the Imbuant
and the Informant. 


In its more standard function, the Objectant is a secondary sentential instantiation. On
the one hand, it extantialises something separate from the Imbuant. But on the other hand,
in terms of the way it is related to the Imbuant through a mode of the Imbuant's existence
that is also that of the Objectant. 
This relation is maintained in the identity statement, but here the Informant function,
created by the Processant, is focused directly onto the Objectant. Thus the relation
between Imbuant and Objectant is necessarily compressed, and is far more limited in scope
than it would be if mediated through a distinct mode of existence. Consequently, the Modal
Switch has the same compressed form, appearing as the *substitution property.* 
However, it should be noted that not all sentences where the Modal Informant consists of
an Extantal Objectant alone display this *substitution property.* An example of this would
be a *generic implication* type sentence like: "The whale is a mammal." So, where the
Modal Informant consists of an Extantal Objectant, the correspondence function of the
Processant has a *compressed form, * where there is no scope for tense adjustment. The
Modal Switch either produces sentences that make sense, and thus have a *substitution
property,* or do not...."

etc etc.
[from GEVANS613-AT-aol.com, Re: Identity and Difference, Tue, Jan 22, 2002, 7.10pm]

michaelP 



--MS_Mac_OE_3096957184_584669_MIME_Part

HTML VERSION:

Good Evans wrote recently, quoting Michael Eldred:

In a message dated 18/02/2002 21:27:00 GMT Standard Time, artefact-AT-t-online.de writes:

Subj:Re: Martin Heidegger the intellectual mentor of the left
Date:18/02/2002 21:27:00 GMT Standard Time
From:    artefact-AT-t-online.de (Michael Eldred)
Sender:    owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Reply-to: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu <mailto:heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
To:    heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu


Supposing that womanliness is a way in which truth holds sway, then the
sway of truth itself becomes a question along with the apparently
self-evident difference man/woman on which feminism is so stridently
based.

Nietzsche says in the Preface to JGB that "every kind of dogmatism [in
philosophy] is standing there today in a sad stance lacking courage. If
it is still standing at all!"

The lack of courage is the failure to take a stand in defined truth when
truth itself, i.e. its holding sway, becomes a question. Truth's holding
sway both holds up human being in a stance, i.e. allows it to stand _as_
human being, and brings it to sway indefinitely, indefinably in
resonances which one cannot quite put one's finger on.

Only when we are barely still standing can be begin to learn to rethink
what metaphysics has left us standing with.

However, it should be noted that not all sentences where the Modal Informant consists of an Extantal Objectant alone display this *substitution property.* An example of this would be a *generic implication* type sentence like: "The whale is a mammal." So, where the Modal Informant consists of an Extantal Objectant, the correspondence function of the Processant has a *compressed form, * where there is no scope for tense adjustment. The Modal Switch either produces sentences that make sense, and thus have a *substitution property,* or do not...."

etc etc.
[from GEVANS613-AT-aol.com, Re: Identity and Difference, Tue, Jan 22, 2002, 7.10pm]

michaelP