From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:19:40 EST
Subject: Re: mistranslations



--part1_121.1c5c266e.2b45c09c_boundary

In a message dated 02/01/2003 14:34:47 GMT Standard Time, 
michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk writes:


> Subj:mistranslations
> Date:02/01/2003 14:34:47 GMT Standard Time
> From:    michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk (michaelP)
> 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
> 
> 
> Michael writes:

> I remember, folks, back in those distant times of 2002 I suggested that 
> beings like Matter and God were the barely thinkable
> limits/bounds/conditions of/for thinking itself; better they are the
> horizons of thinking, neither to be believed in nor not to be believed in.


Jud:
Matter and what can be described by quantum physics.can be observed and felt 
and tasted and smelt and heard - God can't.

Michael:

Now when we come to being (or it comes to us), [it] being not a being

> (however inclusive or however profound the foundationality), being comes
> across (or withdraws) as the utterly unthinkable horizon of all horizons,
> without which thinking is impossible and impassable. Even less is being to
> be believed in or not believed in; it is the very possibility of belief and
> non-belief; the difference between belief and non-belief; difference...

Jud:
Thinking is perfectly possible without the folk-believe of "Being"  - To 
eliminate "Being" from one's philosophy liberates and cleases the mind.
"Dancing" doesn't exist and "walking" doesn't exist and "being" or 
"existence" doesn't exist - but only the dancer, the walker and the be-er or 
the existent. The reification of action and the attribution of gerunds, 
gerundials and verbal and adverbial verbial nouns to the manner or mode of 
something that exists, which are actually linguistic conveniences has 
bedevilled philosophy for thousands of years. Belief is that which allows us 
to hold to something for which there is no evidence - for any evidence would 
dispense with the need for belief. Some people NEED to believe - others don't.

> 
> Michael:

Being can thus neither be disputed nor asserted, nevermind proved or
> disproved, and all speech about it is bathetic chatter even when such speech
> makes reference to the horizonality it confers. Being comes across in
> meta-phor, in (mis)trans-lation, in inter-pretation... in the (be)tweens,
> the crossings, the abouts: one does not have to speak of it at all since the
> very every possibility of speech and language makes silent reference to its
> silent heart.


Jud:
If you point to my computer and say "That has a mind of its own - a kind of 
soul or computerhood" I cannot disprove it. But that does not mean that as a 
reasonable man, bearing in mind the evidence- I will dispute your claim.
Like the monk said: "The very fact that we talk about God proves he exists."  
To believe that because something you assert cannot be disproved adds weight 
to your assertion is wrong and cannot be brought in as evidence to support 
your case.  For me walking does not exist, in the same way that *duration* 
does not exist, but is an experience of the consciousness, [which itself does 
not exist ] of the walker, which itself DOES exist. For me there is no 
separation of the mind and the body and they are both existential modalities 
[ways of existing of the same body. There has been much philosophical 
discussion concerning which came first developmentally - the egg of the 
intentionality, or the chicken of capability - the egg of existence or the 
chicken of essence?

The truth of the matter is that that which exists, and the "essence" or the 
way that an entity exists, is precisely the same thing - only the 
accommodating human linguistic signifier changes (from "egg" to "chicken") in 
order to keep nominative pace with the concurrently instantaneous partnership 
of substances and their combinatory existential states which impinge upon the 
totality of the physical nexus and the anticipatory and supervenery 
Gesamptsumme which is its temporal landlord.

An entity exists in exact correspondence to the current states and modalities 
of its essential corporeal molecular-based, constituent variables, together 
with their currently transmogrifying intrinsic and extrinsic reciprocations 

The real or sentential (ideative) extantal subject is that which equates or 
corresponds with the entitative object named by the signifier - the name or 
noun by which it is identified.

The real or sentential entity that corresponds to the definite article and 
signifier: " the man" is the componential assemblage or conglomerate of human 
existential constituents as modified and commuted by their ever-changing 
states and modalities.

That which the metaphysical tradition extrinsically calls the "essence" of 
man" is intrinsically that which exists as the seething similitude of 
requisite physical and mental event-based somatic equivalences that occur to 
the quantum-based, component mini-entities of which the macro entity in its 
completeness consists. 

The ongoing internal and external interactions, and the totality of their 
dynamic somatic and mental events, and the processes that inhere to their 
physical entireness is the existential essence, which corresponds to the 
nominative signifier of the named existent subject entity - the man or the 
woman concerned.

A human subject's responses and reactions to the inherent dynamic of their 
own internal aggregate conflicts and processes, and the impingements and 
effects of the outer environment, constitute the de facto, perpetually 
accommodating, corporeal and mental architecture of the entity. This 
existential - essential concordance is so absolute and autocratically 
consummate, that the sum internal and external activity of an entity 
indistinguishably incorporates and constitutes the entity itself. 

The linguistically expedient 'naming' of the 'perceived' material 'stasis' of 
a human entity as 'Michael' or 'Jud' also equals [in the mind of those that 
name] the sum of its existential - essential activities. The processant 'IS' 
(the BE-word) allows us to sententially discriminate and descriptionally 
sequestrate certain perceived states and modalities from the totality that is 
the subject, in order to make challengeable propositions concerning them. 
Thus I can choose a single behavioral dish from the assemblage available on 
the Carte du jour of your multitudinous modalities and say of you:

"I like what Michael writes even though I don't agree with it."  :-)

Cheers,

Jud Evans.







--part1_121.1c5c266e.2b45c09c_boundary

HTML VERSION: