File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0301, message 110


From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 09:01:26 EST
Subject: When Being is a Being ...and then it is Not a Being Again.



--part1_97.32a21db4.2b581536_boundary
Content-Language: en


Aristotle's Being

Michael wrote:
Jud proposes [in his supposed attempt to shatter the philosophical world]:

Jud:
There is no such thing as a "supposed attempt" - an attempt is an attempt
whether it is successful or not.

"... that it was not Aristotle's intention that 'being' should be construed
as denoting the essential equality and interchangeability of 'being' as
corresponding to the soul or the ego or the anima or one's consciousness of
one's own metaphysical identity, or the personality or nature of somebody
else."

Michael:
Quite so. But, whoever suggested that either "ousia" or "being"
'corresponded' "to the soul or the ego or the anima or one's consciousness of
one's own metaphysical identity, or the personality or nature of somebody
else" [etc]?

Jud:
Oh dear Michael, you should really make some attempt to catch up on some
wider reading. I realize that it is possible that the Bible may not be your
particular transcendentalist fortune-cookie, but surely you must know that
one of the prime doctrines of Christianity is that Being = Soul? You don't
have to wade thigh-high through the oodles of myth in the Bible itself to
find information on this old son, just key in "Being as Soul" or likewise
terms into your search engine and stand well back or be deluged and 
cybernetically smothered in enough transcendentalist 'goo' to lubricate the
machinery of world industry for a thousand years.

Jesus taught recognition of our total born bodily (or psycho-physical) being
as soul, not merely in the sense of being an immortal subtle individual, but
in the eternal sense, totally inhering in and thus totally identical to the
spiritual and transcendental divine. He taught that we are utterly spiritual
(or eternal, and thus, in truth, unborn), now and forever in intimate free
communion with God, who is spirit, or Radiant Transcendental Being-in (and
thus as) whom we live and move and exist. Ask Tudor all about it - he will
inform and explain everything you don't know about with alacrity I'm sure.

Michael:
Of course, "ousia" (given a wide variety of used meanings) can come to stand
for being in the sense of what is omni-present in the present being(s), their
presence; eventually such a suchness/thatness is transformed into a whatness,
into a quiddity that subsists, (1) an other present being that underlies
any/all present beings; thus it can move from presence to a present being
(sub-stance, stuff, etc).

Jud:
 It is not a question of whether "ousia" CAN come to stand for =E2=80=9CBeing=E2=80=9D in
the sense of what is omni-present in the present being(s), their presence;
[blah, blah, blah] the whole point is that it HAS come to mean those
transcendentalist fantasies that you enumerate, and also the religious
fantasies of President Bush and the Reverend Blair as they invoke =E2=80=9Ctheir=E2=80=9D
God -  in order to fight somebody else's God, and I am "attempting" to
address the HOW of the processes of the "transubstantiation" of an innocent
little element of Greek grammar into the semantic monster and danger that it
now represents for Western philosophy. Think of it as my little contribution
to world peace.

=E2=80=9CDon't worry Sybil, I won't mention Heidegger or the war.=E2=80=9D

(Basil Fawlty to his wife Sybil in: =E2=80=9CThe Germans=E2=80=9D episode. BBC Television.)

Michael:
But: Being (for most of those who have actually read the relevant material..I suspect) [is] not any of those beings (ego, soul, anima, consciousness,
etc), because (2) being is not a being (being is not a thing that is, was or
shall be), and certainly nothing human, nothing godly, nothing living, not a
thing at all. Nor a thingly quality of things, rather: the thinging of
things, the appearing of appearances, the presencing of what is present, etc.



Jud:

Michael in the paragraph before your last paragraph you claim that Being is=20a
being and now in the paragraph above you say it is not a being - which is it
that you believe - (1) or (2) or both? :-)

According to Heidegger's theological pals, and after his =E2=80=9Cbe-badged=20 and
be-flagged period=E2=80=9D  (see pic on my website) he did after all claim to be a "
theologian," and to someone of that ilk =E2=80=9CBeing=E2=80=9D IS "like" one of those
things.  Heidegger even genitivalises and objectifies =E2=80=9CBeing=E2=80=9D as
=E2=80=9Cbelonging=E2=80=9D to man - he talks of =E2=80=9Cman's being=E2=80=9D and the =E2=80=9CBeing of man=E2=80=9D as
if it is something that can be =E2=80=9Cowned=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cattributed=E2=80=9D to man, (or his
gobble-de-gookish side-kick =E2=80=9CDasein) It's only a grammatical category or
conjugational device for the love of C---! It's not some non-existent wraith
that plays ontological Hide and Seek and makes the building go up and down
instead of the lift.

You do however make the interesting point of characterising "Being" as not
being the same as any of the 'beings' that you refer to as: (ego, soul,
anima, consciousness, etc) This suggests that you consider those things (well
it doesn't just suggest - it states] as actual 'beings?' Can you please then
explain to the forum, what is the difference between one of your 'beings,'
(ego, soul, anima, consciousness, etc) and the Bible's or Heidegger's
'being,' which according to your potentially blasphemous opinion doesn't
exist, or even 'BE' the 'being' that its designatory word 'being' ascribes to
it?

Michael:
IMHO, Jud has yet again set up a straw man with whom to battle and conquer.
Again, IMHO, what he consistently fails to do is listen, and struggle with
what he hears.

Jud:
Then Jesus is the straw man, for it was him that claimed Being is Soul. What
you fail to do IMHO is to read - for you demonstrate [how can I phrase this
kindly?] - a seemly lack of knowledge or "information gap" regarding just how
seriously the sundry religionists and Christian Heideggerians associate
"being" and "soul" as virtually interchangeable terms?


Michael:
It is not my business to argue with the fascinating histories of the
trajectory of words and concepts as they trans-late from Hebrew to Greek to
Roman to Arab to ... (I have not the expertise nor the inclination), but,
such a study is marginal if the basic understanding of the real question of
being and the ontological difference is not taken on board, seriously,
un-glossed, face-to-face. Basically Jud here and elsewhere (in the piece on
"ousia" for example) is paddling in the wrong pool.

Jud:
Surely you must realise after all these years Michael that I HAVE taken on
board the real question of (how you and others of your persuasion] view the
question of being and the "ontological difference" - I have been "facing up"
to the question continuously for a long time, in a way that most people from
the analytic community have not done mainly because they consider it a
philosophical irrelevance - which I do not.

I think it is vitally relevant to the world we live in and the way that we
are despoiling our world and killing each other in millions. For me it is not
the fault of "science" that these things are happening for all scientists are
held in the thrall of their predominantly transcendentalist paymasters, but
of a human population and their political and religious representatives
intellectually stunted and held back by the Parkinsonian hand of religion and
transcendentalism, a cognitively shaking hand that is still capable of
launching internecine and inter-religious warfare upon a long-suffering
mankind. It is religion encouraged unconsciously and naively by its
intellectual confederate transcendentalism that is doing the paddling, and
they are paddling in pools of human blood, from Northern Ireland to the
Indian sub-continent - from Israel to Indonesia and leaving their gory
theological footprints all over our unfortunate planet - and [as Rene says -
its gonna get worse!

Before you accuse me of impeaching Heideggerians of paddling in pools of
human blood, please read my text carefully to avoid making a faux pas.



The King James Bible translates "Being" as "soul."

Regards,

Jud.



--part1_97.32a21db4.2b581536_boundary

HTML VERSION:

Content-Language: en
Aristotle's Being

Michael wrote:
Jud proposes [in his supposed attempt to shatter the philosophical world]:

Jud:
There is no such thing as a "supposed attempt" - an attempt is an attempt whether it is successful or not.

"... that it was not Aristotle's intention that 'being' should be construed as denoting the essential equality and interchangeability of 'being' as=20corresponding to the soul or the ego or the anima or one's consciousness of=20one's own metaphysical identity, or the personality or nature of somebody else."

Michael:
Quite so. But, whoever suggested that either "ousia" or "being" 'corresponded' "to the soul or the ego or the anima or one's consciousness of one's=20own metaphysical identity, or the personality or nature of somebody else" [etc]?

Jud:
Oh dear Michael, you should really make some attempt to catch up=20on some wider reading. I realize that it is possible that the Bible may not=20be your particular transcendentalist fortune-cookie, but surely you must know that one of the prime doctrines of Christianity is that Being = Soul? You don't have to wade thigh-high through the oodles of myth in the Bible itself to find information on this old son, just key in "Being as Soul" or likewise terms into your search engine and stand well back or be deluged and  cybernetically smothered in enough transcendentalist 'goo' to lubricate the machinery of world industry for a thousand years.

Jesus taught recognition of our total born bodily (or psycho-physical) being as soul, not merely in the sense of being an immortal subtle individual, but in the eternal sense, totally inhering in and thus totally identical to the spiritual and transcendental divine. He taught that we are utterly spiritual (or eternal, and thus, in truth, unborn), now and forever in intimate free communion with God, who is spirit, or Radiant Transcendental Being-in=20(and thus as) whom we live and move and exist. Ask Tudor all about it - he will inform and explain everything you don't know about with alacrity I'm sure.

Michael:
Of course, "ousia" (given a wide variety of used meanings) can come to stand for being in the sense of what is omni-present in the present being(s), their presence; eventually such a suchness/thatness is transformed into a whatness, into a quiddity that subsists, (1) an other present being that underlies any/all present beings; thus it can move from presence to a=20present being (sub-stance, stuff, etc).

Jud:
It is not a question of whether "ousia" CAN come to stand for=20=E2=80=9CBeing=E2=80=9D in the sense of what is omni-present in the present being(s), their presence; [blah, blah, blah] the whole point is that=20it HAS come to mean those transcendentalist fantasies that you enumerate, and also the religious fantasies of President Bush and the Reverend Blair as they invoke =E2=80=9Ctheir=E2=80=9D God -  in order to fight somebody else's God, and I am "attempting" to address the HOW of the processes of the "transubstantiation" of an innocent little element of Greek grammar into the semantic monster and danger that it now represents for Western philosophy. Think of it as my little contribution to world peace.

=E2=80=9CDon't worry Sybil, I won't mention Heidegger or the war.=E2=80=9D
(Basil Fawlty to his wife Sybil in: =E2=80=9CThe Germans=E2=80=9D episode. BBC Television.)

Michael:
But: Being (for most of those who have actually read the relevant material...
I suspect) [is] not any of those beings (ego, soul, anima, consciousness, etc), because (2) being is not a being (being is not a thing that is, was or shall be), and certainly nothing human, nothing godly, nothing living, not a thing at all. Nor a thingly quality of things, rather: the thinging of things, the appearing of appearances, the presencing of what is present, etc.

Jud:
Michael in the paragraph before your last paragraph you claim that Being is a being and now in the paragraph above you say it is not a being - which is it that you believe - (1) or (2) or both? :-)
According to Heidegger's theological pals, and after his =E2=80=9Cbe-badged  and be-flagged period=E2=80=9D  (see pic on my website) he=20did after all claim to be a "theologian," and to someone of that ilk=20=E2=80=9CBeing=E2=80=9D IS "like" one of those things.  Heidegger even genitivalises and objectifies =E2=80=9CBeing=E2=80=9D as =E2=80=9Cbelonging=E2=80=9D to man - he talks of =E2=80=9Cman's being=E2=80=9D=20and the =E2=80=9CBeing of man=E2=80=9D as if it is something that can be =E2=80=9Cowned=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cattributed=E2=80=9D to man, (or his gobble-de-gookish side-kick =E2=80=9CDasein) It's only a grammatical category or conjugational device for the love of C---! It's not some=20non-existent wraith that plays ontological Hide and Seek and makes the building go up and down instead of the lift.

You do however make the interesting point of characterising "Being" as not being the same as any of the 'beings' that you refer to as: (ego, soul, anima, consciousness, etc) This suggests that you consider those things (well it doesn't just suggest - it states] as actual 'beings?' Can=20you please then explain to the forum, what is the difference between one of=20your 'beings,' (ego, soul, anima, consciousness, etc) and the Bible's or Heidegger's 'being,' which according to your potentially blasphemous opinion doesn't exist, or even 'BE' the 'being' that its designatory word 'being' ascribes to it?

Michael:
IMHO, Jud has yet again set up a straw man with whom to battle and conquer. Again, IMHO, what he consistently fails to do is listen, and struggle with what he hears.

Jud:
Then Jesus is the straw man, for it was him that claimed Being is Soul. What you fail to do IMHO is to read - for you demonstrate [how can I=20phrase this kindly?] - a seemly lack of knowledge or "information gap" regarding just how seriously the sundry religionists and Christian Heideggerians=20associate "being" and "soul" as virtually interchangeable terms?


Michael:
It is not my business to argue with the fascinating histories of the trajectory of words and concepts as they trans-late from Hebrew to Greek to Roman to Arab to ... (I have not the expertise nor the inclination), but, such=20a study is marginal if the basic understanding of the real question of being and the ontological difference is not taken on board, seriously, un-glossed, face-to-face. Basically Jud here and elsewhere (in the piece on "ousia" for example) is paddling in the wrong pool.

Jud:
Surely you must realise after all these years Michael that I HAVE taken=20on board the real question of (how you and others of your persuasion] view the question of being and the "ontological difference" - I have been "facing=20up" to the question continuously for a long time, in a way that most people=20from the analytic community have not done mainly because they consider it a=20philosophical irrelevance - which I do not.

I think it is vitally relevant to the world we live in and the way that=20we are despoiling our world and killing each other in millions. For me it is not the fault of "science" that these things are happening for all scientists are held in the thrall of their predominantly transcendentalist paymasters, but of a human population and their political and religious representatives intellectually stunted and held back by the Parkinsonian hand of religion and transcendentalism, a cognitively shaking hand that is still capable of=20launching internecine and inter-religious warfare upon a long-suffering mankind. It is religion encouraged unconsciously and naively by its intellectual confederate transcendentalism that is doing the paddling, and they are paddling in pools of human blood, from Northern Ireland to the Indian sub-continent - from Israel to Indonesia and leaving their gory theological footprints all over our unfortunate planet - and [as Rene says - its gonna get worse!

Before you accuse me of impeaching Heideggerians of paddling in pools of human blood, please read my text carefully to avoid making a faux pas.



The King James Bible translates "Being" as "soul."

Regards,

Jud.

--part1_97.32a21db4.2b581536_boundary-- --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005