File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0302, message 188


From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:41:20 EST
Subject: The Grammar of Gracilariidae - Part One



--part1_6d.a8b4b35.2b850db0_boundary
Content-Language: en

Subj: [heidegger-dialognet] Re:
 Date: 18/02/2003 20:42:49 GMT Standard Time From: dalex48-AT-yahoo.com (dalex48
<dalex48-AT-yahoo.com) Reply-to: heidegger-dialognet-AT-yahoogroups.com To:
heidegger-dialognet-AT-yahoogroups.com



Mr. Evans:



Do you really think you're saying something of significance here? My God,
you're vocabulary is extensive and your understanding of what correct
grammatical English entails is really impressive, but do you think you have
said anything of consequence??



Dear Dalex48:



It all depends on who reads what I write, in the same way that the
=E2=80=9Csignificance=E2=80=9D of what you or anybody else writes depends on who reads what
you have written and how they interpret the implications or the meaning of
the written content. I find some of what you have written to be significant.
I find some parts of what you have written to be rich in significance or
implication, for a number of reasons. The first aspect of your text that I
find significant is your obvious youthful sincerity, the second thing that I
find interesting is your dreamy mysticism, which though na=C3=AFve, is attractive
because of its earnestness and reminds me of my own youth. The other thing
about your writing is that it sums up the way in which a certain type of mind
is drawn towards irrationality and has rejected rationality and a logical
interpretation of the environment in which it finds itself, and prefers to
cleave to a world of reificational fantasy. For me to accept what you
evangelise would be to squirm down a narrow tunnel and be met by the figure
of a white Heideggerian rabbit examining a fob-watch to see if he could find
=E2=80=9Ctime=E2=80=9D inside its casing. I believe that it is very significant and in a way
very threatening and frightening for humanity that indeed some people still
think this way.



Dalex48:

Language is about communicating concepts from one human to another. Concepts
are nebulous associations of ideas, which in the main are shared by everyone,
but quite often are different in their details from person to person.



Jud:

No, this is your first big mistake. You may live in a society and mix with a
certain crowd that leaves you with this impression, but out in the big round
world there are to be found - THE OTHERS - who think differently and for
themselves, and who are not subscribers to the set of ideas that you preach=20-
no matter what you preach [or what I preach]. The world view of say an
Indonesian Moslem, as opposed to say an American Baptist, or a Belgian
Satanist, or a British atheist, or a German Neo-Nazi are quite different. The
devil is in the detail.



Dalex48:

Language is about ascribing sounds to these concepts. One word could embody=20a
whole host of concepts. It is up to the author to explain what his set of
concepts are that apply to a particular word that he will employ. Heidegger
is all about explicating what we mean by, perhaps, the most nebulous word of
all: Being.



Jud:

No - Heidegger NEVER explains what BEING is - he merely asks questions about
it, and No, language is NOT just about "ascribing sounds" - to these
concepts, language is about using those morphemic sounds to construct words,
and joining those words into sentence-strings, which attempt to communicate
the concepts AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE to those thoughts that are produced by the
brain. The problems start when these things happen:



(1) There is a miss-match between the utterer's meaning ascribed to the
signifier word and the mental concept it is wished to communicate to an
addressee, and the recipient addressee who may have an entirely different
concept as the referent for that word. The grammarian's job is to try and
maintain the concordance between what and how things are said, with the
generality of meaning of what is said by most human beings in a given
language group AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE to a meaningful semantic agreement as can
be achieved.



(2) The believe amongst certain people that abstract words are =E2=80=9Creal=E2=80=9D and
that there is actually something =E2=80=9Cout there in the world=E2=80=9D called =E2=80=9Cfishing=E2=80=9D
or existence or =E2=80=9Creality=E2=80=9D or [one used yesterday on this list] =E2=80=9Canxiety,=E2=80=9D
when in fact there are no such things are all - but only, =E2=80=9Cthat which is
real=E2=80=9D and humans and animals that =E2=80=9Cfish=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cthose things which exist=E2=80=9D and
=E2=80=9Cthose people who are anxious.=E2=80=9D



Dalex48:

Communication is not about correct grammatical construction and not about
dictionary meanings. People's use of language in that light is sloppy, but
still we manage to communicate our meanings very adequately.



Jud:

Very adequately for YOUR purposes, but inadequately as far as many millions
of others are concerned. Correct grammatical structure is important for clear
communication and that is the only valid raison d'etre for having grammarians
at all. The reason why some people perceive the =E2=80=9Ckeepers of the grammar=E2=80=9D as
=E2=80=9Cmisguided pedants is not that the grammarians wish to show off their
syntactical knowledge or to set themselves up as linguistic spoil-sports but
to help maintain clarity of communication and fight against obfuscation
[deliberate as in the case of Heidegger] or unintentional as in the manner of
most of us. The reason why I (in an amusing way I hope, or at least it is
intended that way) carp against the wilder forms of Elf, is that it is for
many people UTTERLY MEANINGLESS, for some people FAIRLY MEANINGLESS, for the
cult members ADEQUATELLY MEANINGFUL and for the utterer UTTERLY MEANINGFUL.



My attempts at poking fun at Elf-speak is an attempt to smooth out these
semantic differences and arrive at a linguistic modus operandi where
communication can take place? What is the alternative? Start speaking Elf
myself? I couldn't do that, for I would involuntarily burst out laughing, for
the concepts concerned - that mountains pop up and down etc and that there is
but there isn't a thing or a non-thing called =E2=80=9CBeing=E2=80=9D which=20=E2=80=9Chides=E2=80=9D from
us, and the significations [words] employed to describe such non-existing
non-things are so outrageously juvenile and alien to a rationalist
experientialist (read =E2=80=9Ccommon-sense=E2=80=9D if you like) that I would be
continually pissing my pants with laughter which would have dramatic
implications for the laundry costs in the Evans' household No, upon
reflection I prefer to remain dry and continent rather than a piss-soaked
Elf-prattling sponge.



Dalex48:

To focus on an aspect of something that is inexact by its very nature to the
exclusion of what that something, the conveyance of meaning, is really all
about, is not seeing the forest from the trees. It's misguided pedantry.



Jud:

By now, reading what I have written, you may have got the impression that I
am not taking what you have written seriously or that I am making fun of you.
This is not the case and incidentally it is not the case whenever I write to
anyone on this list. I take what you [and they] say very seriously and it is
the ideas that I attack or lampoon not the person [unless they attack me
personally as Peter did the other day]



My criticisms of Heideggerian impreciseness and inexactitude are almost
wholly concerned with ontological aspects of the =E2=80=9CBeing-word=E2=80=9D as a
signification without a referent and with the childlike reification of
verbal-nouns [gerunds] and adverbial nouns [gerundials] into proper names to
which the definite article =E2=80=9Cthe=E2=80=9D is prefixed a la Anthony Crifasi.



 In my case regarding Heidegger this IS no forest, but just a few leafless
trees and the only leaf on the landscape in the leaf that Heidegger endlessly
and incomprehensively twists in his hands as he searches myopically for the
=E2=80=9CIS=E2=80=9D which he believes to be attached to the leaf or residing within like
some ontological grub.



Dalex48:

Linguistic Analysis, considered in the form that you suggest, is pure word
play. It has no more cogency than the working of a crossword puzzle. Is it
that maybe you don't want to take the time to understand Heidegger's
philosophy?



Jud:

Try me - let's have a discussion about Heidegger's =E2=80=9Cphilosophy=E2=80=9D and then you
will find out.



Dalex48:

Or is it that you feel more comfortable in your world of word games where you
can "impress" everyone with your cleverness?





Jud:

Oh blimey! Here comes the ad homonym - and here's me thinking you might be
different to the rest. Whether I am more comfortable in my so-called =E2=80=9Cworld
of word games=E2=80=9D (I am not an admirer of Wittgenstein) as you are in yours I
don't know - I am not sure, all I know is that in saying what you have just
said is indulging in precisely what you accuse me of - for accusing me of
playing word games is to play a word-game yourself the word game of attacking
the person instead of the idea. But don't worry about it, for I am quite
accustomed to it for it is a feature of the transcendentalist mind to attack
rather than try to find a peaceful modus vivendi - as we see in the behaviour
of Bishop Bash and the Reverend Blur.



Dalex48:

Do you have any ideas on the subject of man's relation to the world that he
finds himself in? Any curiosity? Just what are your ideas? You can speak
them--we won't criticize you for any silly grammatical mistakes. We just want
to know your ideas. Language is about expressing ideas, isn't it?



Jud:

You are certainly in a generous mood this morning dialex48 - I mean deigning
not to criticise my silly grammatical mistakes? And why the =E2=80=9Croyal we=E2=80=9D pray?
Have you been deputised by the list members to approach me in this manner and
for this purpose? Yes, I am extremely curious about the cosmos and all that
exists therein. I have spent all my life reading and asking questions (except
when I was earning my bread in my own business or working for others or
defending my country.) If you are truly interested in my ideas then I suggest
you initiate a Heideggerian subject and fire away, but I must warn you that
whilst I have an open mind, that openess does not include accepting
reificatory verbal nouns as real things, which means of course that =E2=80=9CBeing=E2=80=9D
is out for starters, for I hold {along with John Foster} that it is purely a
figment of the imagination of those that imagine it. That is not to say that
=E2=80=9Cthe idea=E2=80=9D of =E2=80=9CBeing=E2=80=9D is off limits as a subject of discussion, but merely
that your possible view may be that there is ACTUALLY a thing or a non-thing
called by some believers =E2=80=9CBeing,=E2=80=9D whilst for me the concept=20=E2=80=9CBeing=E2=80=9D is only
valid as a discussion item in the sense that it represents a peculiar way of
thinking, which has helped to set philosophy back 50 or 60 years, and as an
appurtenant component of transcendentalism in its many-headed hydra
variations adds to the danger that such fanatical beliefs present to the
world and particularly the West at this moment in human history. So there is
one of my ideas - try kicking that around for a while and get back to me if
you agree or don't agree or if you think that the idea of transcendentalism
as being basically evil and anti-human is =E2=80=9Cnot significant=E2=80=9D=20as an idea?



Dalex48:

I took the trouble of investigating what Heidegger was trying to say. His
obfuscatory language certainly made it difficult, but I think I got the
essence of it. And what I found is not only original, but beautiful:



Jud:

Bully for you! Now who is the one who is peacock-parading his/her abilities?



Dalex48:

Sein und Zeit is not a metaphysical statement as much as it is a new way of
looking at things and more of a description.



Jud:

The contents of the book: 'Sein und Zeit' is brimful of metaphysical
non-sense from cover to cover. There are 1138 occurrences of the metaphysical
signifier =E2=80=9CBeing=E2=80=9D in the book and 266 citations of the metaphysical
signifier Elfling-word Dasein=E2=80=9D which he employs in such Klingonisms=20=E2=80=9CThe
term Dasein, as a pure expression of Being, has been chosen to designate this
being.=E2=80=9D Does it not occur to you to ask yourself WHY he employed the
verbal-noun =E2=80=9CBeing-There=E2=80=9D instead of some other less ontologically loaded
designator of human presence like Bunyan did with his =E2=80=9CEveryman?=E2=80=9D If you do
not ask yourself these questions but just skip over the word and read it as
=E2=80=9CJohn Doe=E2=80=9D then you haven't got what it takes to be a philosopher and will
remain a =E2=80=9Crun of the mill=E2=80=9D Heideggerian dabbler attracted to non-existent
certainties encloaked within the warm folds of Elfdom.



Dalex48:

I would compare it to the attempt by a newservice to cover a ballgame, where
it sends out reporters to cover different aspects of the "going to a
ballgame" experience, but fails to really capture what it means to sit in the
stands. Heidegger captures that experience, but it's not a ballgame were
talking about, it's being-in-the-world and the world- as-Being.



Jud:

I am a great fan [and user] of metaphor, and I like the way you write, and I
love descriptional literature. As a young man I loved Charles Dickens as the
great descriptionalist, and if I look up at the walls of my study the set of
leather-bound Dickens that my mother bought me for my twenty-first birthday
present still grace my shelves like dependable friends awaiting our next
encounter. These books are my confederates - I remove one and rub my hands
lovingly over the well-used bindings. We have journey to lots of strange
places together my books and me [or =E2=80=9CI=E2=80=9D if you prefer] I have jogged along
in the cart with =E2=80=9CLittle Nell=E2=80=9D and stood trembling besides David Copperfield
as holding forth his bowl, he stood before the poorhouse functionary and
said: =E2=80=9CPlease Sir, may I have some more?=E2=80=9D



 I love being told by a good writer what it is like going to a ball game, and
although I have only ever been to one ball game in my life, which was during
the war when the American military once used the Everton Football as a venue
to play this sport and even then the excitement of the occasion, the =E2=80=9Cclick=E2=80=9D
as deftly swung bat connects with ball and the rising roar from one-voiced
the many-headed creature that is the crowd as the capped figure scoots around
the greensward lozenge.



The reason that I have indulged myself in so much metaphoricality is to
illustrate that although the volumes of Dickins =E2=80=9Cappear=E2=80=9D in=20my
=E2=80=9Cimagination=E2=80=9D to be my =E2=80=9Cdependable friends awaiting=20our next encounter=E2=80=9D
these books are NOT REALLY =E2=80=9Cmy, made from paper, cardboard and ink.=20Neither
is the crowd at the baseball match a =E2=80=9Cmany-headed creature.=E2=80=9D Those
descriptions, whilst entertaining to think and satisfying and amusing to read
are NOT true descriptions of the world and like Heidegger's imaginings
concerning the way the world SEEMS to US, or the way the world appears TO us,
and not FOR us in the way that Heidegger conceives of 'beings' as no more
than ontological parlour-maids awaiting for the sash of presencing to be
pulled to summon them into some Elfish Sitting-Room of =E2=80=9Cpresencing of
presence.=E2=80=9D

In other words - fanciful imaginings and philosophy don't mix.

Keep them separate and things are fine - mix them together and what you have
on your hands is a Heideggerian daseinic disaster-area.



End Part One

--part1_6d.a8b4b35.2b850db0_boundary

HTML VERSION:

Content-Language: en Subj: [heidegger-dialognet] Re:
Date: 18/02/2003 20:42:49 GMT Standard Time From: dalex48-AT-yahoo.com (dalex48 <dalex48-AT-yahoo.com) Reply-to: heidegger-dialognet-AT-yahoogroups.com To: heidegger-dialognet-AT-yahoogroups.com

Mr. Evans:

Do you really think you're saying something of significance here? My God, you're vocabulary is extensive and your understanding of what correct grammatical English=20entails is really impressive, but do you think you have said anything of consequence??

Dear Dalex48:

It all depends on who reads what I write, in the same way that the =E2=80=9Csignificance=E2=80=9D of what you or=20anybody else writes depends on who reads what you have written and how they=20interpret the implications or the meaning of the written content. I find some of what you have written to be significant. I find some parts of what you=20have written to be rich in significance or implication, for a number of reasons. The first aspect of your text that I find significant is your obvious youthful sincerity, the second thing that I find interesting is your dreamy mysticism, which though na=C3=AFve, is attractive because of its earnestness=20and reminds me of my own youth. The other thing about your writing is that it sums up the way in which a certain type of mind is drawn towards irrationality and has rejected rationality and a logical interpretation of the environment in which it finds itself, and prefers to cleave to a world of reificational fantasy. For me to accept what you evangelise would be to squirm down=20a narrow tunnel and be met by the figure of a white Heideggerian rabbit examining a fob-watch to see if he could find =E2=80=9Ctime=E2=80=9D inside its=20casing. I believe that it is very significant and in a way very threatening=20and frightening for humanity that indeed some people still think this way.

Dalex48:
Language is about communicating concepts from one human to another. Concepts are nebulous associations of ideas, which in the main are shared by everyone, but quite often are different in their details from person to person.

Jud:
No, this is your first big mistake. You may=20live in a society and mix with a certain crowd that leaves you with this impression, but out in the big round world there are to be found - THE OTHERS - who think differently and for themselves, and who are not subscribers to the set of ideas that you preach - no matter what you preach [or what I preach]. The world view of say an Indonesian Moslem, as opposed to say an American Baptist, or a Belgian Satanist, or a British atheist, or a German Neo-Nazi=20are quite different. The devil is in the detail.

Dalex48:
Language is about ascribing sounds to these concepts. One word could embody a whole host of concepts. It is up to the author to explain what his set of concepts are that apply to a particular word that he will employ. Heidegger is all=20about explicating what we mean by, perhaps, the most nebulous word of all: Being.

Jud:
No - Heidegger NEVER explains what BEING is - he merely asks questions about it, and No, language is NOT just about "ascribing sounds" - to these concepts, language is about using those morphemic sounds to=20construct words, and joining those words into sentence-strings, which attempt to communicate the concepts AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE to those thoughts that are produced by the brain. The problems start when these things happen:

(1) There is a miss-match between the utterer's meaning ascribed to the signifier word and the mental concept it is wished to communicate to an addressee, and the recipient addressee who may have an entirely different concept as the referent for that word. The grammarian's job is to try and maintain the concordance between what and how things are said, with the generality of meaning of what is said by most human beings in a given language group AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE to a meaningful semantic agreement as can be achieved.

(2) The believe amongst certain people that abstract words are =E2=80=9Creal=E2=80=9D and that there is actually something =E2=80=9Cout there in the world=E2=80=9D called =E2=80=9Cfishing=E2=80=9D or existence or =E2=80=9Creality=E2=80=9D or [one used yesterday on this list] =E2=80=9Canxiety,=E2=80=9D when in fact there are no such things are all - but only, =E2=80=9Cthat which is real=E2=80=9D and humans and animals that =E2=80=9Cfish=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cthose things which exist=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cthose people who are anxious.=E2=80=9D

Dalex48:
Communication is not about correct grammatical construction and not about dictionary meanings. People's use of language in that light is sloppy, but still we manage to communicate our meanings very adequately.

Jud:
Very adequately for YOUR purposes, but inadequately as far as many millions of others are concerned. Correct grammatical structure is important for clear communication and that is the only valid raison d'etre for having grammarians at all. The reason why some people perceive the =E2=80=9Ckeepers of the grammar=E2=80=9D as =E2=80=9Cmisguided pedants is not that the grammarians wish to show off their syntactical knowledge or to set themselves up as linguistic spoil-sports but to help maintain clarity of communication and fight against obfuscation [deliberate as in the case of Heidegger] or unintentional as in the manner of most of us. The reason why I (in an amusing way I hope, or at least it is intended that way) carp against the wilder forms of Elf, is that it is for many people UTTERLY MEANINGLESS, for some people FAIRLY MEANINGLESS, for the cult members ADEQUATELLY MEANINGFUL and for the utterer UTTERLY MEANINGFUL.

My attempts at=20poking fun at Elf-speak is an attempt to smooth out these semantic differences and arrive at a linguistic modus operandi where communication can take place? What is the alternative? Start speaking Elf myself? I couldn't do that, for I would involuntarily burst out laughing, for the concepts concerned -=20that mountains pop up and down etc and that there is but there isn't a thing or a non-thing called =E2=80=9CBeing=E2=80=9D which =E2=80=9Chides=E2=80=9D from us, and the significations [words] employed to describe such non-existing non-things are so outrageously juvenile and alien to a rationalist experientialist (read =E2=80=9Ccommon-sense=E2=80=9D if you like) that I would be continually pissing my pants with laughter which would have dramatic implications for the laundry costs in the Evans' household No, upon reflection=20I prefer to remain dry and continent rather than a piss-soaked Elf-prattling sponge.

Dalex48:
To focus on an aspect of something that is inexact by its very nature to the exclusion of what that something, the conveyance of meaning, is really all about, is not seeing the forest from the trees.=20It's misguided pedantry.

Jud:
By now, reading what I have written, you may have got the impression that I am not taking what you have written seriously or that I am making fun of you. This is not the case and incidentally it is not the case whenever I write to anyone on this list. I take what you [and they] say very seriously and it is the ideas that I attack or lampoon not the person [unless they attack me personally as Peter did the other=20day]

My criticisms of Heideggerian impreciseness and inexactitude are almost wholly concerned with ontological aspects of the =E2=80=9CBeing-word=E2=80=9D as a signification without a referent and with the childlike reification of verbal-nouns [gerunds] and adverbial nouns [gerundials] into proper names to which the definite article =E2=80=9Cthe=E2=80=9D is prefixed a la Anthony Crifasi.

In my case regarding Heidegger this IS no forest, but just a few leafless trees and the only leaf on the landscape in the leaf that Heidegger endlessly and incomprehensively twists in his hands as he searches myopically for the =E2=80=9CIS=E2=80=9D which he believes to be attached to the leaf or residing within like some ontological grub.

Dalex48:
Linguistic Analysis, considered in the form that you suggest, is pure word play. It has no more cogency than the working of a crossword puzzle.=20Is it that maybe you don't want to take the time to understand Heidegger's philosophy?

Jud:
Try me - let's have a discussion about Heidegger's =E2=80=9Cphilosophy=E2=80=9D and then you will find out.

Dalex48:=20
Or is it that you feel more comfortable in your world of word games where you can "impress" everyone with your cleverness?


Jud:
Oh blimey! Here comes the ad homonym - and here's me thinking you might be different to the rest. Whether I am more comfortable in my so-called =E2=80=9Cworld of word games=E2=80=9D (I am not an admirer of Wittgenstein) as you are in yours I don't know - I am not sure, all I know is that in saying what you=20have just said is indulging in precisely what you accuse me of - for accusing me of playing word games is to play a word-game yourself the word game of=20attacking the person instead of the idea. But don't worry about it, for I am quite accustomed to it for it is a feature of the transcendentalist mind to attack rather than try to find a peaceful modus vivendi - as we see in the=20behaviour of Bishop Bash and the Reverend Blur.

Dalex48:
Do you=20have any ideas on the subject of man's relation to the world that he finds himself in? Any curiosity? Just what are your ideas? You can speak them--we won't criticize you for any silly grammatical mistakes. We just want to know=20your ideas. Language is about expressing ideas, isn't it?

Jud:
You are certainly in a generous mood this morning dialex48 - I mean deigning not to criticise my silly grammatical mistakes? And why the =E2=80=9Croyal we=E2=80=9D pray? Have you been deputised by the list members to approach me in this manner and for this purpose? Yes, I am extremely curious about the cosmos and all that exists therein. I have spent all my life reading and asking questions (except when I was earning my bread in my own business or working for others or defending my country.) If you are truly interested in my ideas then I suggest you initiate a Heideggerian subject and fire away, but I must warn you that whilst I have an open mind, that openess does not include=20accepting reificatory verbal nouns as real things, which means of course that =E2=80=9CBeing=E2=80=9D is out for starters, for I hold {along with John Foster} that it is purely a figment of the imagination of those that imagine=20it. That is not to say that =E2=80=9Cthe idea=E2=80=9D of =E2=80=9CBeing=E2=80=9D is off limits as a subject of discussion, but merely that your possible view may be that there is ACTUALLY a thing or a non-thing called by some=20believers =E2=80=9CBeing,=E2=80=9D whilst for me the concept =E2=80=9CBeing=E2=80=9D is only valid as a discussion item in the sense that it represents a peculiar way of thinking, which has helped to set philosophy back 50 or 60 years, and as an appurtenant component of transcendentalism in its many-headed hydra variations adds to the danger that such fanatical beliefs present to the world and particularly the West at this moment in human history. So=20there is one of my ideas - try kicking that around for a while and get back=20to me if you agree or don't agree or if you think that the idea of transcendentalism as being basically evil and anti-human is =E2=80=9Cnot significant=E2=80=9D as an idea?

Dalex48:
I took the trouble of investigating what Heidegger was trying to say. His obfuscatory language certainly made=20it difficult, but I think I got the essence of it. And what I found is not only original, but beautiful:

Jud:
Bully for you! Now who is the one who is peacock-parading his/her abilities?

Dalex48:
Sein und Zeit is not a metaphysical statement as much as it is a new way of looking at things and more of a description.

Jud:
The contents of the book: 'Sein und Zeit' is brimful of metaphysical non-sense from cover to cover. There are 1138 occurrences of the metaphysical signifier =E2=80=9CBeing=E2=80=9D in the book and 266 citations of the metaphysical signifier Elfling-word Dasein=E2=80=9D which he employs in such Klingonisms =E2=80=9CThe term Dasein, as a pure expression of Being, has been chosen to designate this being.=E2=80=9D Does it not occur to you to ask yourself WHY he employed the verbal-noun =E2=80=9CBeing-There=E2=80=9D instead of some other less ontologically loaded designator of human presence like Bunyan did with his =E2=80=9CEveryman?=E2=80=9D If you do not ask yourself these questions but just skip over the word and read it as =E2=80=9CJohn Doe=E2=80=9D then you haven't got what it takes to be a philosopher and will remain a =E2=80=9Crun of the mill=E2=80=9D Heideggerian dabbler attracted to non-existent certainties encloaked within the warm folds of Elfdom.

Dalex48:
I would compare it to the attempt by a newservice to cover a ballgame, where it sends out reporters to cover different aspects of the "going to a ballgame" experience, but=20fails to really capture what it means to sit in the stands. Heidegger captures that experience, but it's not a ballgame were talking about, it's being-in-the-world and the world- as-Being.

Jud:
I am a great fan [and user] of metaphor, and I like the way you write, and I love descriptional literature. As a young man I loved Charles Dickens as the great descriptionalist, and if I look up at the walls of my study the set of leather-bound Dickens that my mother bought me for my twenty-first birthday present still grace=20my shelves like dependable friends awaiting our next encounter. These books=20are my confederates - I remove one and rub my hands lovingly over the well-used bindings. We have journey to lots of strange places together my books and me [or =E2=80=9CI=E2=80=9D if you prefer] I have jogged along in the cart=20with =E2=80=9CLittle Nell=E2=80=9D and stood trembling besides David Copperfield as holding forth his bowl, he stood before the poorhouse functionary and said: =E2=80=9CPlease Sir, may I have some more?=E2=80=9D

I love being told by a good writer what it is like going to a ball game, and although I have only ever been to one ball game in my life, which was during the war when the American military once used the Everton Football as a venue to play this sport and even then the excitement of the occasion, the =E2=80=9Cclick=E2=80=9D as deftly swung bat connects with ball and the rising roar from=20one-voiced the many-headed creature that is the crowd as the capped figure scoots around the greensward lozenge.

The reason that I have indulged=20myself in so much metaphoricality is to illustrate that although the volumes of Dickins =E2=80=9Cappear=E2=80=9D in my =E2=80=9Cimagination=E2=80=9D to=20be my =E2=80=9Cdependable friends awaiting our next encounter=E2=80=9D these books are NOT REALLY =E2=80=9Cmy, made from paper, cardboard and ink. Neither is the crowd at the baseball match a =E2=80=9Cmany-headed creature.=E2=80=9D Those descriptions, whilst entertaining to think and satisfying and amusing to read are NOT true descriptions of the world and like Heidegger's imaginings concerning the way the world SEEMS to US, or the way the world appears TO us, and not FOR us in the way that Heidegger conceives of 'beings' as no more than ontological parlour-maids awaiting for the sash of presencing to be pulled to summon them into some Elfish Sitting-Room of =E2=80=9Cpresencing of presence.=E2=80=9D
In other words - fanciful imaginings and philosophy don't mix.
Keep them separate and things are fine - mix them together and what you have on your hands is a Heideggerian daseinic disaster-area.

End Part One
--part1_6d.a8b4b35.2b850db0_boundary-- --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005