Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:09:06 EDT
Subject: Of Little or No Importance.



--part1_17f.ca3cfc8.2a8ac162_boundary
Content-Language: en

slight interjection of little or no importance:

Jud once more in response to Anthony recently:

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

So a non-existent being, i.e, a non-being, cannot appear (in some form). OK,
how's about something like an illusion (even physical like the bent stick in
the water): in an illusion or semblance something appears as something
else/other in its appearing, i.e., the appearance is not the appearance of
the being it is an appearance of at all; such a not-being-itself being that
appears as not-itself -- is it necessarily non-existent because (be-cause --
geddit?) it does not appear as itself? In the case of the stick seen bent in
water, we can either take the phenomenon to be the appearance of the
stick-as-bent or the stick being in water (the stick not being bent but being
straight but refracted in the water)... does this not need more subtlety here?

Jud:
Predictable 'non-importance' I'm afraid.  Wiltshiremen are known as
=E2=80=9CMoonrakers.=E2=80=9D  The story goes that a group of them were on their way home
from the pub and saw a huge round Wiltshire Stilton cheese floating in a
pond.  Someone fetched a rake and they tried to rake it towards the bank. 
It's a long tale that goes on and on - but the bottom line is that it wasn't
a cheese at all  it was the reflection of the moon.
The reflection in the water is no such thing as a =E2=80=9Cnon-existent being=E2=80=9D at
all it is the photonic representation of the entity we call the moon as
reflected back by the surface water of the pond. The entity actually EXISTS
thousands of miles away. Quite simply - and I am aware that what I have to
announce will come as a severe shock to you - non-existent =E2=80=9Cbeings=E2=80=9D don't
exist. [The word =E2=80=9Cnon-existent=E2=80=9D gives you a clue as to why this should be
so.] Something DOESN'T =E2=80=9Cappear=E2=80=9D as I am tired of pointing out to you it
=E2=80=9Cappears to you.=E2=80=9D  The reflection in the pond doesn't say=20=E2=80=9COh, here comes
Michael on the way home from the pub - I'll wait until he is within viewing
distance and then I will =E2=80=9Cappear=E2=80=9D to him=E2=80=9D

Later Jud questions whether:

"The word "IS" or "Being" is something you can find under the doormat or
hiding behind a leaf like Heidegger?"

Wasn't there once a song by Led Zepellin called 'How Many More Times'?
Heidegger was talking about being not the word "being" and even less the
label <being; interestingly

Jud:
Read the text again Michael - if you can't understand it now there is I'm
afraid no future hope of you EVER understanding it.

Michael:
Jud's analogy with the word "car" and the real car was appropo but he still
cannot, will not, see that the talk employed the word "being" (what else can
talk do?) but was referring to, pointing at, speaking, being itself, at least
attempting to. To prattle on about grammar in such a misreading is as
ridiculous as to complain about the typographical word "car" not being the
same colour as the car to which the word is referring.

Jud:
Being doesn't exist. As some Canadian [John Foster?] guy on this list  [a
supporter of yours] proclaimed on this list not long ago  - =E2=80=9CBeing=E2=80=9D is all
in the imagination=E2=80=9D [or words to that effect]

Finally for now, Jud adds as a ps:

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

Michael:
But I did not. [sighs] Just piss-poor wit and potentially highly offensive,
[and, I suppose this very sentence somewhat sums up the Jud-cum-Catweasel I
know and loathe.]

Jud:
As I live and breathe and am loathed! You aren't I hope accusing me - the
loathed one -  of anti-Semitism are you!
Well now you are REALLY trawling in the gutter! The speculation as to the
likely and expected lack of enthusiasm or meanness with gelt, was an
extrapolation by me from your patent and pointed meanness of spirit  - no
more no less. I have NEVER in all my years on the Internet [or off the
Internet] EVER expressed of insinuated ANY racialist behaviour in word or
deed even in fun.

regards

michaelP



--part1_17f.ca3cfc8.2a8ac162_boundary

HTML VERSION: