Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:51:35 EDT
Subject: Re: Heidegger's Leaf Revisited.



--part1_68.24cffb9c.2a9eadf7_boundary

In a message dated 28/08/2002 21:51:14 GMT Daylight Time,
Villanova-AT-btopenworld.com writes:


> Subj:Re: Heidegger's Leaf Revisited.
> Date:28/08/2002 21:51:14 GMT Daylight Time
> From:    Villanova-AT-btopenworld.com (Paul Murphy)
> 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
>
>
> Paul Murphy wrote:



>
> Isn't that like saying that the colour red only exists in the sense that it
> has some position on the colour spectrum that is not-white, not-green etc
> etc....so red presupposes that it is not-black and on and on ad
> nauseam...so being presupposes that firstly that it is not unbeing or not
> being and then that it is not suzanne's being or henry's being but mine...
>
 

Jud:
The piece was directed at pointing to the BE-mechanism  [is] as  transacting
or indicating the modalic existentiality of the  colour of the leaf, [the
particular colour and it place on the colour-chart  and its relation to white
is of no importance] it is the principle -  that Heidegger's confusion is in
assuming that the sentence: "The leaf is green"  points to the "presence" 
[universal or cosmic presence] of the leaf itself,  [see the similarly
confused Crifasian confabulationay  message a few minutes ago] rather than
pointing to the existential modality of greenness that the leaf exhibits
for/to Heidegger.  Hence we see an idiot savant making a fool of himself
seeking the "isness" of the leaf within the leaf itself.  Read my: "Ein
Gespr=E4ch mit Professor Heidegger" on the AIT list  for the text.

Paul Murphy:
Arthur Rimbaud stated 'I is somebody else', and I think that this delves into
the existentialist conundrum.  When we realise that our own sense of personal
identity is so fractured, so indefinable, so made up in the eyes of others,
that to talk about oneself becomes a statement about others, not oneself.
I haven't read Heidegger apart from a few pages of Sein und Zeit, but I have
a few primers here, perhaps you can give me some evaluation of them?
PM

Jud:
I my experience they are all much of a muchness - and normally not worth the
paper that they are written on, other that if you are out in the forrest 
orienteering and get taken short. I do not accept Rimbaud's notion. Yes, we
accrue and collect a multitude of  ideas,  opinions, influences, information
etc., during the course of our lives, but [for me anyway] it is [my] "I" that
transacts the incoming information and makes certain descisions concerning
it.  I concede that many of those decisions will be influenced by previously
absorbed information penned by others, and  other  snatched conversations and
other content  play their part in the sense that we only have so much time to
collect and absorb the available data.

It is inevitable that the vast mass of info will not be transacted or
processed, and that for me [because of my great age] is much more poignant a
disappointment than the inevitability of death that was the engine of
Heidegger's drive, simply  because of its sheer volume, and mostly untasted
deliciousness . Yes - we are inevitably influenced by others.  BUT I would
not go so far as to say that we lose our individuality completely a la Rimbo,
and become some sort of  shambling, baggy-eyed, post modernist zombie. 
Individuality, uniqueness, and OK, yes,even idiosyncraticy is still very much
alive and well - at least in Merrie Olde England anyway.

Jud Evans.

--part1_68.24cffb9c.2a9eadf7_boundary

HTML VERSION: