Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 11:29:55 EDT
Subject: Re: Persius Project



--part1_34.2baae0a4.2a8a7ff3_boundary

In a message dated 13/08/2002 14:31:03 GMT Daylight Time, crifasi-AT-hotmail.com 
writes:


> Subj:Re: Persius Project
> Date:13/08/2002 14:31:03 GMT Daylight Time
> From:    crifasi-AT-hotmail.com (Anthony Crifasi)
> Sender:    owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu">heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu</A>
> To:    heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.


Jud:
Been altar-wine bibbing again? :-) or are your nerves starting to fray like 
the hem of your cassock?  Look and listen again. The reason I rejected the 
appearance of "causality" is because being non-existent - it doesn't have any 
appearance (geddit?)   - anyway not as far as the inanimate objects that we 
have been talking about are concerned,  whereas "evil," or the human activity 
for which the abstract noun stands for in English, has an abundance of 
"appearances" and instances and manifestations, not ONLY as far as religion 
and its proponents is concerned, but also  non-religiously motivated 
pedastry, non-priestly child molestation etc. which does go on outside the 
cloisters -  though on a much smaller scale.

The "appearance" of event/effect is what you see when you witness a 
car-accident or asteroidal collision or a priest on top of a choirboy in the 
chancel.
Oh dear all your patiently knitted sophistry is suddenly becoming unravelled 
and trailing all over the  floor. Now that wouldn't be because I've been 
"stringing you along" would it...and you haven't"cottoned on yet?" ;-)

> 
> >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.
> 

The word "evil" is simply a symbol made up of phonemes or alphabetic letters 
old boy, or perhaps you didn't realise.  :-) The WORD "evil" only exists as a 
label or tag for the observable  activity or human behaviour which the device 
signifies - Oh, dearie, dearie me your carefully knitted fabrications are all 
coming apart and the  yarn is getting more and more tangled with every word 
you write...  Perhaps you believe with Tudor that words and  verbal 
conjugations have magical powers, or that the word  "IS" or "Being" is 
something you can find under the doormat or hiding behind a leaf like 
Heidegger? EXCITING ISN'T IT? Quick! Look in your pocket - you might find the 
word "car" written on a piece of paper - just think - you could ride home in 
style if you insert the words "A Rolls Royce" in front of  the word "car." Go 
on!  I dare you!   Do a "Heideggereediggereedoo." and take dasein along for 
the ride - he won't take up much room, being imaginary, he certainly won't 
bore you with his conversation - he speaks German I believe - with a Southern 
dialect! 

> That's the log.


Jud:
 Sorry I don't know what you mean by: "That's the log" ? Is Yule upon us 
already?

> 
> >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?
> 
> Anthony:
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.

Jud:
Now the wine's all over your surplice and the tangle of  wool is wrapped 
about your crozier dear boy - we know he didn't  - for if he had of done, he 
would have had to provide  a human stand-in  on which to hang his 
proper-name, and his little grammatico-syntactical con-trick would have blown 
up in his face wouldn't it? He would have had a lot of little surpliced 
surplus  "Beings" running round and round in circles bumping into each other, 
or indulging in the "Dance of the Dasenic Dopplegangers."  Oh dear - you just 
don't geddit do you?  You CAN'T have an appearances of Dasein because its a 
Figment of his Immagination.

{Bold case and caps for emphasis not shouting dear boy}

Jud: (previously)
> >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?
> 
> Anthony:

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? ;-)

Jud:
I find your constant references to homosexuality very amusing, but also 
sociologically  interesting, particularly in view of the reputation for 
Catholics in America  in that direction - is it your collar that you wear 
back to front or your trousers?  Seriously - are you in fact gay? There are 
things about your way of writing...?
If so I am sorry to disappoint you - but there are lots of Gay discussion 
lists on the web if bum-chums are what you seek?
Alternately you could always linger awhile after mass next Sunday and pretend 
to be bending over a pew to light a candle or  be picking up the 
french-letters (priestly evidential appearances?) outside of the Confession 
Box or something......you never know what might come your way?   :-)


> 
> Jud Evans 

(having  fun.)

You missed the joke entirely about Michael's roving fingers - the key words 
were "gelt" and "pay"  :-)


--part1_34.2baae0a4.2a8a7ff3_boundary

HTML VERSION: