Subject: Re: Persius Project
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:28:44 +0000


Jud wrote:

>I won't go into the obvious “appearances” for
>those religious/atheistic differences right now, for I am anxious to
>put this general question of “appearances” to one side, and remove
>this artificial claim that you continually and rhetorically repeat,
>that there is some contradiction in accepting the appearances that
>correspond to the meaning one abstract noun and not another.

Actually you have finally at least attempted to address the objection, even 
if obliquely. Thank you very much.

>Regarding the abstract noun “evil.” Before we
>address that particular abstract noun [and I hope that you are sitting
>comfortably?] I wish to address your obvious confusion regarding the
>whole concept of abstract nouns, gerundialisations, verbal nouns
>(nouns formed from a verb or the form of an English verb when used as
>a noun) or whatever term you choose to call the nominal-verbal
>shortcuts that we use to describe the demonstrations, manifestations,
>indications, appearances, visual, audible, olfactory activities and
>behaviours of human beings and the rest of the natural world,
>including mountains, pepperpots, asteroids and knitting needles.
>
>Ironically this is the minefield where transcendentalism is at its
>most vulnerable, for the key thing concerning the employment of this
>form of speech - this type of word - is that due to the inbuilt
>non-explicity of its nature - there are widely differing semantic
>values placed upon it from person to person, and   it means different
>things to different people, based upon their perceptions of the
>evidence or appearances of the phenomena.  The difficulties in
>employing such constructions are further compounded by the fact that
>for some people not only are the evidential appearances for such
>activity hotly contested, and perceived as quite different from person
>to person, political party to political party - religion to religion -
>man to woman - African to American etc., but in many cases people deny
>THE VERY EXISTENCE of the activity itself as I am doing in the case of
>“causality” and “purpose” in inanimate entities, and you are
>doing when you deny “evil” as an activity which can be laid at the
>door of  religion and the religious.

Not just of religion and the religious, since you have yet to point out any 
appearance of evil whatsoever.

>Therefore there is nothing at all contradictory in me or anybody else
>fully accepting the appearances and manifestations of events and their
>effects which can be witnessed through the porthole of a space ship in
>the case of asteroidal collision, and NOT accepting the existence of
>the entitic activity which the term “causation” entails in the
>same event.

The reason it is contradictory for YOU (specifically) to do this is that YOU 
rejected causality due to lack of appearance, and YOU also have yet to 
specify exactly the appearance of its being an "effect" or "consequence," as 
opposed to its just being an event. So it may not be contradictory for 
someone else who can specify the appearance of effect, but since you have 
not done this, then this remains contradictory for you.

>Neither would many people accept the religious evidential
>claims for the appearances or epiphanies of spiritual phenomena for
>the same reasons, whilst they WOULD accept the associations between
>the employment of the word “evil” and the worldly activity of
>mankind which it symbolizes, in the case of religion and religionists,
>because of the abundant and horrific evidence and appearance of it
>malefic activities in just about any corner of the world that you
>choose to visit or read about.

If they can specify the "appearance" of evil, as opposed to just an event 
(neither good nor evil, no matter how strongly I feel about it), then that 
would not be contradictory for them. But since YOU have not yet specified 
the appearance of evil, then it remains completely contradictory for YOU to 
throw out that accusation while rejecting other things due to nonappearance. 
That's the log.

>Of course whilst we are on the subject of the validity or invalidity
>of verbal nouns or noun phrases, perhaps you ought to take another look at 
>the most blatantly employed one of all as far as this list is
>concerned, and that is the nominal anthropomorphisation of the verbal
>"being there" as a Proper Noun and grammatico - ontological device?

Sure. What's the problem? Heidegger never claimed to be going by appearance 
vs. nonappearance, because that is not the only way we encounter phenomena.

>But then like Doc Eldred I can already see that glazed look appearing
>in your eyes and hear the sounds of the neural motors shutting down.
>
>Is your fantasized "giant log-jam" unjammed enough for you now, or
>shall you start beavering away assiduously with the construction of
>another diversionary riverine Aunt Sally?

Actually if that's what it took to finally get you to at least try to 
address the issue, then I know what I have to do from now on. Some people 
are creatures of reason, and some are creatures of ad hominems, but hey, 
different strokes for different folks, right Mr. art company man? ;-)

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com



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