From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 15:26:55 EST
Subject: Judment Day



--part1_a5.3387fa33.2b51d80f_boundary
Content-Language: en

In a message dated 11/01/2003 17:27:11 GMT Standard Time,
michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk writes:


Subj:absolution from terror: 
Date:11/01/2003 17:27:11 GMT Standard Time
From:    michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk (michaelP)
Sender:    owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Reply-to: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
To:    heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu




Jud recently speaking of the "transcendentalist" terrorists:

... These transcendentalist take over the controls of aircraft and crash them
into public buildings. If we don't try to understand how their minds work
then we will never be able to find an answer to this chaos. Part of the
journey of discovery in finding out how the minds of transcendentalists work
is to analyse the BE-mechanism which is at the bottom of it all - it's really
as simple as that.

So, if I understand the above, analytical work performed and laboured over
the "BE-mechanism" shall find "out how the minds of transcendentalists work=20"
and that will make sense of the chaos visited by those "transcendentalist
[who] take over the controls of aircraft and crash them into public
buildings" [etc


Jud:
No, Michael you are indulging in your old tricks again, [is it perhaps
compulsory in Heideggerianism?] to put words in my mouth. I wrote: " if we
don't try", and  "part of the journey of discovery in finding out=E2=80=9D not "shall
find" and "will make sense."
The text is right up there in front of you  - How come you can't see it?



Michael:



I presume...]. So, the ground ("at the bottom of it all") of a certain
terrorism (seemingly exercised by "transcendentalists")



Jud:

Not =E2=80=9Cseemingly=E2=80=9D - =E2=80=9Cdefinitely=E2=80=9D exercised by=20transcendentalists terrorists 
- who believe in an invisible transcendental God..

 Michael:
What is the mechanism of "being?"  [note I've lost a bit of your text here -
I think this was your question?]

Jud:
The way the mechanism of being operates conjugationally and semantically and
thereby affects the cognitive apprehension of the meaning of being which has
become  corrupted so that =E2=80=9CBeing=E2=80=9D has been transformed into=20a noun, not used
only to describe an entity, but also a vague =E2=80=9Cspirituous=E2=80=9D thing that =E2=80=9Cbelongs
=E2=80=9D to an entity as a sort of fugacious side-kick who keeps coming and going
and is spoken of in a genitival way in relation to an entity.



Michael:

or even perhaps -- being. Ummhh. So one possible ground of violent terrorist
attacks is the being-mechanism (whatever that is) itself? Ah, yes, presumably
what is meant is: a mechanism encouraged, supported, sponsored, by those that
take some interest in the meaning of being. Right. Heideggerians, for
instance. Or even those that are merely interested in Heidegger's thinking
and writings. Like those who patronise this very list. Me, for example. So,
if I have gotten this correctly, I, in my interest in matters Heideggerian am
part and parcel of the ground, the reason, for the twin-tower atrocity. Well,
I never! For me, and others on this list and countless others not on this
list, I must ask the great thinker Jud how he comes to this conclusion; I
didn't know I was so powerful as to be even partly responsible for the
spectacular deaths of a couple of thousand new-yorkers, wow!!! Just by
reading and thinking around a few books by Heidegger.



Jud:

Of course it is ridiculous to suggest that the terrorists committed their
crimes because of a misunderstanding of grammar - Arabic or otherwise - It
must be patently obvious to just about everybody else on this list other than
you, that I am refering to to the "Being" of the "Supreme Being" otherwise
known as GOD in whose name these acts and similar acts are committed. The
being-word in all languages is highly relevant to an understanding of the way
the human mind thinks about "Being,"  and in particular how it extrapolates
the possibility of a non-material being, for once the notion has been
acceptance semantically, the existence of a grammatical category is made real
in the minds of the religionists and  the die is cast and the door is flung
open to the dreamed-up cosmic presence of any number of Gods and Godlets  to
be pleased and placated on a promise of a place in paradise with the
concomitant death and despair that religionists, in an effort to measure up
to this ideal, drags in its wake.    Look at Israel at the moment.  


Michael:
:
Right, please, oh great one, tell me the exact and painstakingly detailed
definition of "transcendentalist" so that I might compare my decadent and
despicable practice to that of the terrorists who are so similar, and that of
the philosopher, Heidegger, who, seemingly has spawned such disgusting
practices by simply, elaborately and subtly raising the question of the
meaning of being.




Jud:
Heidegger's error as a so-called educated man who should have been more
responsible,  was to admit "Being" as a subject for discussion in the first
place, particularly after he had admitted that he couldn't understand it at
all, and more or less said [like you] said =E2=80=9Cforget about it=E2=80=9D let's address
beings instead." [not his exact words, but see my website for the script of
what he said.]

For more information see parts one and two of my long reply to Malcolm
regarding Kant's refutation of the Cartesian ontological  proposition to
account for the existence of God. Kant rightly argues that existence
shouldn't be considered a predicate. "Being" cannot be a determination of the
concept of God or for the existence of God, and that that is why "Being" is
so important for humanity ,and should not be ignored and passed over as you
suggested in one of your recent posts while the world is in turmoil..


Michael:

And you say "it's really as simple as that". So, I must be so so stupid,
because I cannot, without your guidance see the simplicity of this equation;
so, I need
some real thinking and reasoning laid out in real detail so that I can follow
the path leading from an interest in the meaning of being to the destruction
of the twin towers; I know you can do this because of the extraordinary
confidence and bravura with which you typically despatch your erudite and
closely argued posts; so, as a special favour to me and the others who are
interested in the thinking of Heidegger, please illuminate (and do not spare
us any need for complex, tightly reasoned explication: we must learn, and the
best way is by example). And, if you'll forgive the imposition, could you
acquaint us with the form(s) of causation, determination, influence, tendency
(etc, you get my drift) that you employ to get from -- interest in Heidegger
(and thus the question of the meaning of being) -- to -- terrorist attacks.
And, sorry again, can you fill us all in on the so-called "BE-mechanism" too;
I mean, what is mechanical about it? what is the "mechanical"? and are you
referring to a word ("being") or to being itself? and how do you know what
you know (i.e., what manner of epistemology are you employing?)?


Jud:
No there is no suggestion that you or anybody else on this list is stupid. =20I
 can put up [because I respond] with ad hom directed at me, but I don't want
you to start to create nonexistent ad hom and  put that  ad hom against you
or anybody else in MY mouth.

My epistemology is my own experience, study, observation, listening, [in
spite of what Malcolm says] talking with people, attending lectures - it is
an experientialist epistomology - that is if you want more abstractions to
chew on. [I know you love little abstractionalist chew-chews]

By "mechanism" I mean the way that it works. The question of "Being" which
together with other reificational imaginings like your "presencing" and all
the rest of the performance etc., is supportative of the anti-rationalist
concept that it is possible that not only the "Being" of humans is a feasible
possibility, but that the "Being" of an "Almighty Being"  - the "King-Kong 
of Being" or "Mighty Joe Young of "Being" and beings is also possible, and
furthermore that this imagined:  "Almighty Being" created and watches over
them - and can be interpreted as being pleased or placated by various acts of
beings [usually at the suggestion of priests]
As most of your message is no more than amusing rhetoric, I won't spend too
much on this reply.  You know perfectly well my position regarding the
confusions of ousia and that the legacy left following upon this confusion
has left metaphysicians ontologically castrated and  hog-tied for the
following two thousand years.

Michael:
I cannot wait for the enlightening response that shall give me reason to wail
at the wailing wall come next yom kippur and finally absolve my guilt. With
this anticipation, I thank you in advance.

Jud:
My Bank is The Nat Wset if you wish to show your appreciation in a more
material form.
Most of what you seek can be found in previous writings of mine, or will
become apparent as my Dilemma of Modern Metaphysics progresses in the
leisurely way I go about things. The trouble is that all these messages that
require a reply, though welcome, are keeping me from my present undertaking.

regards,

Jud




--part1_a5.3387fa33.2b51d80f_boundary

HTML VERSION: