Subject: Re: Persius Project
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:22:41 +0000


Jud wrote:

>Look and listen again. The reason I
>rejected the appearance of "causality" is because being non-existent -
>it doesn't have any appearance (geddit?)

Got it.

>- anyway not as far as the
>inanimate objects that we have been talking about are concerned,

Or for people either. Remember, you said "There is no appearance of the 
causality of my will," and then you said that this was "obviously" your 
position.

>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.

Just a side note - percentages are not more in the cloister than out. Look 
it up. As for other evils, wanna compare numbers? Two words - Stalin and 
Mao. And that's just two.

But I digress. You have yet to specify the exact appearance of evil, because 
as many philosophers of your bent have pointed out, it is one thing to say 
that something occurs, but quite another to say that it is good or bad. One 
is clearly visible, the other is clearly FELT, but not visible. You cannot 
see "bad" - what color is "bad"? What shape is "bad"? Is "bad" round or 
rectilinear? But you sure FEEL bad at the sight or thought of certain 
events. What you see is an event which you LABEL bad or good. So you would 
be imposing one of your subjective figments on religionists, which is 
precisely the philosophical crime of which you accused religionists and 
transcendentalists with regard to purpose.

>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?" ;-)
>
>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

Which means, yes that's right, IT HAS NO APPEARANCE, since it is only "a 
label or tag FOR the observable activity," not itself observable. You have 
just contradicted yourself in the very same post!

>- 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."

Nah, too Brit for me. At least Ford owns Jaguar now.

> >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.

Even apart from the whole Dasein-has-no-appearance thing, and just taking 
ordinary beings, he is saying that we do not only encounter them as 
appearing objects, or even as modalities of appearing objects. We CAN 
encounter them that way, but it is not the only way, nor even the first or 
most fundamental way. So since all your objections to him depend on the 
premise that beings MUST be either appearing objects or modalities of 
appearing objects, all your objections which proceed from that premise are 
completely non-consequential.

>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?

You might want to ask my lovely auburn haired Celt girlfriend.

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com



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