From: "Paul Murphy" <Villanova-AT-btopenworld.com>
Subject: Re: Martin Python's Flying Circus.
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:13:30 +0100
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
well slow motion my plums, this is really getting hilarious..
----- Original Message -----
From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: Martin Python's Flying Circus.
In a message dated 19/02/2003 18:40:19 GMT Standard Time, michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk writes:
Subj:Re: ontic/onto
Date:19/02/2003 18:40:19 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
on 19/2/03 5:36 pm, GEVANS613-AT-aol.com at GEVANS613-AT-aol.com wrote:
To me me it all seems very straightforward and uncomplicated. Some of us [who are interested in these matters] may speak of what is described philosophically as: "matters of ontology," that is matters and discussional material relating to the metaphysical study of the nature of being and existence.
To speak thus is not to speak "ontologically" or "ontically," but simply to speak - about the current price of vegetarian sausages - or about different areas of human interest and concern such as "being" and "existence." The operative word is ABOUT - for we do not speak "ontologically" - but speak ABOUT ontological matters.
We are not here in agreement as you later suggest: I was speaking of ontological and ontical speech not speech about ontology or ontics (both of which are ontical speech precisely because of the "about"). Heidegger claimed to have attempted an engagement in 'Fundamental Ontology', ontological speech. My question is not answered by saying it is impossible, since I asked "how can ontological speech show itself in an ontic speech", given this is difficult... but not necessarily at all impossible. My point (if I have one) is that speech of being (ontology) is doubly genetive (is also -- being speaking...); speech about some thing(s) is utterly ontic but must relate to being since beings -- are. More strongly, my pointless point is that one inevitably is in the grip of being when speaking of beings; my question is how does this showing show itself even in the most ontic of speeches?
regards
Jud:
Then Heidegger was even more of a screwball than I guessed. "Being" cannot speak - has no tongue - no mouth. "Being" is a thing of our [your] imagination as John Foster will be delighted to confirm. It's a non-thing. Ontology is the metaphysical study of the nature of "Being" and existence.
"Ontological" is the adjective which describes or relates to the "science" [Hahaha!] of ontology, which is the metaphysical study of the nature of being and existence. Now can some bright Heideggerian Funken please [goose] step forward and enlighten me how your obeah-man could speak the metaphysical study of the nature of being and existence.without speaking about the metaphysical study of the nature of being and existence? No Elf-speak allowed on this occasion Thank you. This is worthy of the Parrot Sketch in Martin Python's Flying Circus..
John Cleese: "Good morning Herr Professor Heidegger - I 'd like you to talk in ontological speech."
Michael Palin: "Good morning Herr Student Crackpot. What do you want to say concerning ontology and my ontological investigations?"
John Cleese: "I don't want you to say anything about ontology or your ontological investigations - I just want you to speak in ontological speech."
Michael Palin: "Do you know where the Prophylactic Brain Replacement Laboratory is in the Faculty of Medicine Herr Student Screwball?"
John Cleese: "Yes, Professor Isn't it next to the Transcendentalist Trepanning Dept?"
Michael Palin: "That's right Herr Student Screwball. Goose-step over there and ask for Dr. Wanker-Heimer - He'll fix you up with a new brain transplant....and..Oh Herr Student Screwball one minute please...."
John Cleese: "Yes Herr Professor Heidegger?"
Michael Palin: "Drop this ontological speaking dead parrot off in the Philosophy Department as you go past...there's a good fellow - and be careful that you carry it upside-down, there's a secret love-note stuffed up its arse for the pretty dark-haired one from Hanover.
John Cleese: "With pleasure Her Professor - Goodbye.
Michael Palin: [screaming] "You mean 'Heil Hitler! You dolt!
John Cleese: (raises arm to salute and drops parrot - white paper covered in big kisses drops out of parrot's anal passage )
"H-h-h-h-Heil Hitler - Herr Professor Heidegger!"
Michael Palin: "Oh Just GET OUT you...you...you dumme Wurst!"
Queue Flying Circus music. "Tee dum, tee dum, tee-tee dum dum dum...dum, dum, dum tee dum..."
Hahahaha! Rolling on the floor laughing - Don't stop now Michael - Hahahah! I beg you Michael! Keep it going. Hahahahah!
This should be serialised on the Telly. I haven't laughed so much in YEARS! Hahahahah! Hahahah! Hahahaha! Hahahahah! Hahahah! What's Lew Grades' phone number - quick? Get me my agent - quick! Phone Jerry Springer! Phone anyone! Hahahahah! Hahahah! Hahahahah!
Cheers through eyes bedimmed with crying with laughter!
Jud.
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/
Jud Evans - ANALYTICAL INDICANT THEORY.
http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com
HTML VERSION:
----- Original Message -----From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.comSent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 11:58 PMSubject: Re: Martin Python's Flying Circus.In a message dated 19/02/2003 18:40:19 GMT Standard Time, michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk writes:
Subj:Re: ontic/ontoon 19/2/03 5:36 pm, GEVANS613-AT-aol.com at GEVANS613-AT-aol.com wrote:
Date:19/02/2003 18:40:19 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
To me me it all seems very straightforward and uncomplicated. Some of us [who are interested in these matters] may speak of what is described philosophically as: "matters of ontology," that is matters and discussional material relating to the metaphysical study of the nature of being and existence.
To speak thus is not to speak "ontologically" or "ontically," but simply to speak - about the current price of vegetarian sausages - or about different areas of human interest and concern such as "being" and "existence." The operative word is ABOUT - for we do not speak "ontologically" - but speak ABOUT ontological matters.
We are not here in agreement as you later suggest: I was speaking of ontological and ontical speech not speech about ontology or ontics (both of which are ontical speech precisely because of the "about"). Heidegger claimed to have attempted an engagement in 'Fundamental Ontology', ontological speech. My question is not answered by saying it is impossible, since I asked "how can ontological speech show itself in an ontic speech", given this is difficult... but not necessarily at all impossible. My point (if I have one) is that speech of being (ontology) is doubly genetive (is also -- being speaking...); speech about some thing(s) is utterly ontic but must relate to being since beings -- are. More strongly, my pointless point is that one inevitably is in the grip of being when speaking of beings; my question is how does this showing show itself even in the most ontic of speeches?
regards