From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 11:21:24 EST
Subject: Re: The Fluttering Moth of Marburg
--part1_47.2a1ce8d2.2b768884_boundary
In a message dated 08/02/2003 14:07:23 GMT Standard Time, tgeorgescu-AT-home.nl
writes:
> Subj:RE: The Fluttering Moth of Marburg
> Date:08/02/2003 14:07:23 GMT Standard Time
> From: tgeorgescu-AT-home.nl (Tudor Georgescu)
> 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
>
>
Hi Tudor,
Thanks for the trouble that you have gone to in dealing with the Heidegger
quotes. Although (predictably) I do not accept your answers, because I do
not believe in the existence or non-existence of "Being," I can see that from
a Heideggerian position they are very well answered.
Michael (typically when he cannot answer problems,) has run away from the
questions as I anticipated he would, (he is very predictable), just like his
master did in the case of the failure to understand the ontological nature
of BE-mechanism (or even come near to grasping its function) during his
self-mutterings. Michael's mind has become so completely annexed by the mind
of his master, he has lost all trace of his own personality and turned into a
Heidegger-clone which puts me in mind of "The Stepford Wives" film. He even
picks up his ball and runs back home just like Andy-Pandy Heidegger did when
he couldn't figure out how his new BE-Toy functioned, and spitefully threw it
to the floor and spat: "I never wanted it anyway - SO THERE!".
Don't worry about Michael though - I'll get Nurse Smackbottom to look in
through the spy-hole on his nursery-door now and then to make sure that he
doesn't get frustrated with changing the nappies his new Heraclitus doll,
(according to Michael it even shits) and smashes its head against the Wendy
House. chimney.
Cheers,
Jud.
>
> > (1) Heidegger - "Being is always the Being of a being."
> > (1a) Use of "is" in relation to "Being." How can "Being" possible "be"
> >if it's not a thing and doesn't exist?
>
> Yes, because the to be (a.k.a. Being) is the fact something is (rather than
> no thing is). The to be is thus the condition of all things' existence. To
> say the to be is not, this is nihilism, because it grounds things on
> somebeing that does not exist.
>
> > (2) Heidegger - "to define anew the kind of Being."
> > (2a) Being (which doesn't exist) can be categorized.
> > How does one categorise nothing?
>
> Definition: the to be is total, fundamental and absolute. It is the Whole. I
> proved above that nihilism is nonsensical, for something is. The Nothing is
> an existence (a being), yet the most empty one. But, it seems it is pretty
> malleable, since it fills all the "empty" places inside substances.
>
> > (3) Heidegger - "the Being of this being"
> >(3a) "Being" can "belong" to someone?
> > How can something, which is not a thing - and therefore is a nothing,
> > [although it is impossible either to be a nothing or not to be a nothing]
> > belong to someone?
>
> "Being of this being" is the fact that being is. Following this line of
> thought, we can say, more exactly, that the to be is not, but it is
> to-be-ing. Only its creation, the "is" is. Herein pops up the distinction
> between the potential and dynamics. The potential exists potentially (it is
> to-be-ing), and only its instantiations exist dynamically (they are). We see
> that here we reconciled realism with mentalism: world is both real
> (objectual) and mental (virtual). How can we conceive such a world? See
> http://members.home.nl/tgeorgescu/2questions.html for its knowability. Thus,
> the to be is not a thing, but it generates all things. It is the virtual
> coexistence of all virtualities, and it enforces its domination upon beings
> (existences) by generating the dynamics (also known as objectual reality in
> previous mindframes).
>
> > (4) Heidegger - "the basic constitution of their Being."
> > (4a) "Being" has a "constitution?"
> > How can something, which does not exist "have" a "constitution?"
> > Reminder: "Constitution" is the way in which someone or something is
> composed.
>
> Besides begging the question, you confuse the general the to be with the way
> of being of particular beings. We can imagine the to be only as being
> equally present in all places, undivided and without any distinction in its
> spatial/substantial configuration. Therefore, its constitution is the
> Oneness, defined above as total, fundamental and absolute.
>
> > (5) Heidegger - "the realm of Being called nature"
> > (5a) "Being" is to be in a "realm."
> > How can "Being" have any "realm" if it doesn't exist?
>
> It definitely does not present itself as a whole in any instance (thus we
> deny the holistic thought). But, it presents itself by creating for us a
> framework (the nature) within which we have to cope or face the
> psychiatrists. Therefore, nature is defined by the unalienable willingness
> to be, and it is thus the to be's realm.
>
> > (6) Heidegger - "this being's (man's) kind of Being."
> > (6a) Though non-existent it comes in various "kinds."
> > How can "Being" {which doesn't exist} be sorted out into different "kinds"
> > How is this sorting carried out and who is it that does the sorting?
>
> Heidegger circumscribed man's way of being by its capacities: he is having a
> body, he is in the world, he is emotional, he is understanding-able, he is
> with the others, etc. These are a priori knowledge about the being of every
> possible man, even when some of the above capacities seem to be lacking. Of
> course, here the Christian believes the to be is a big Dasein, yet
> Heidegger's philosophy avoided such theological standpoints, possibly from
> fear of being misunderstood as a fideist.
>
> > (7) Heidegger - "the term Dasein, as a pure expression of Being,"
> > (7a) So "Being" is not a "Being" - it's a being Being-There?"
>
> This expresses that the human is a way of being, which (potentially and/or
> dynamically) understands the to be in its motivations and aims. It can
> understand itself as an existence, which is a pure expression of the
> Existence, as a drop is an analysis (abstract) of the ocean.
>
> > (8) Heidegger - "The "soul" which constitutes the Being of man"
> > (8a) Oops! Now it's not a "Being" anymore - it a "soul." Well God luv a
> duck!
>
> Mark 8:37 and Luke 12:20 seem to suggest that "soul" means the personal
> existence, the ability of being situated in a world. See the 2questions for
> an analysis.
>
> > (9) Heidegger - "a being which in conformity with its kind of Being"
> > (9a) So a being can conform with or to something that doesn't exist?
>
> He was trying to render that one cannot jump over his own shadow, i.e.
> become something else than he is meant to become, in the limitations due to
> human's constitution and its thrownness.
>
> > (10) Heidegger - "its most proper Being."
> > (10a) So "Being" [though it is non-existent] can be described
> > adjectivally as having all the qualities typical of the thing specified?
>
> Proper means one's own. It probably means the essence of each person, which
> is a being which actualizes in his/her person.
>
> > (11) Heidegger - " the specific constitution of the Being of Dasein"
> > (11a) Things get even more curious - now the "constitution" of
> > "Being" can be described "specifically."
>
> He means that we are different from each other.
>
> > (12) Heidegger - " It only brings out the Being of this being"
> > (12a) So the invisible, non-existent "Being" can be "brought out"
> > now - OK the floor is yours - let's see it please?
>
> One can express himself/herself or fail at this.
>
> > (13) Heidegger - " separating the regions of Being".
> > (13a) Ah! Now we get down to the nitty-gritty - although "Being"
> > doesn't exist it can be separated into "regions". How is this
> > separation accomplished? This is REALLY exciting. Please rush me
> > the details.
>
> We know that existence, as any other substance, can be divided in pieces or
> domains.
>
> > (14) Heidegger - " the structures and concepts of Being"
> > (14a) So "Being" has "structure" Pray tell us how this "structure"
> > is built using non-existent materials? If it has structure" how is
> > it "destructured or restructured or restructured?"
>
> Some of the structure we see, for example, in a computer, which is an
> existence (but not a Dasein). Another structures are our psychological and
> spiritual structures, which cannot be seen, but they exist, though.
>
> > (15) Heidegger - " the Temporality of Being."
> > (15a) So this non-existent structure exists in time does it?"
>
> It manifests itself by creating the time, as its (actual and possible)
> horizon of revelation.
>
> > (16) Heidegger - " the constitution of Being of the "occurrence" of
> Dasein"
> > (16a) So "Being-There" has an "occurrence" does it - most people thing
> > that it is the entity that occurs rather than the being of the being-there
> > of that entity? Perhaps you mean that the Being of a being, and the Being
> of
> > its Being-There happen at the same time? But it can't can it - for
> Heidegger
> > has already said that: "Being" is "soul?"
>
> Well, for us, the to be is certainly an occurrence. We first meet it as
> "outside" in order to recognize it later everywhere. Therefore, what we
> first have is our soul (without knowing that it is our soul) and later can
> we speak about other souls and the existence in general.
>
> > that being is called "Being-There"
>
> For me, it is always called being-here (if I speak of myself).
>
> Gigantomachia peri tes ousias!
>
> Tudor Georgescu
>
> http://intellect-club.nl.eu.org
>
>
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
> ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
> Return-Path: <owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
> Received: from rly-zd05.mx.aol.com (rly-zd05.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.229])
> by air-zd03.mail.aol.com (v90_r2.5) with ESMTP id MAILINZD32-0208090722;
> Sat, 08 Feb 2003 09:07:22 -0500
> Received: from mail.virginia.edu (mail.virginia.edu [128.143.2.9]) by
> rly-zd05.mx.aol.com (v90_r1.1) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINZD59-0208090657;
> Sat, 08 Feb 2003 09:06:57 1900
> Received: from lists.village.virginia.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa15527;
> 8 Feb 2003 9:06 EST
> Received: (from domo-AT-localhost)
> by lists.village.Virginia.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.0) id JAA07180
> for heidegger-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 2003 09:06:38 -0500 (EST)
> X-Authentication-Warning: lists.village.Virginia.EDU: domo set sender to
> owner-heidegger-AT-localhost using -f
> Received: from mail7-sh.home.nl (mail7.home.nl [213.51.128.24])
> by lists.village.Virginia.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id JAA07172
> for <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>; Sat, 8 Feb 2003 09:06:33
> -0500 (EST)
> Received: from cc101998a ([212.204.137.137]) by mail7-sh.home.nl
> (InterMail vM.5.01.05.17 201-253-122-126-117-20021021) with ESMTP
> id <20030208140631.EYRX18185.mail7-sh.home.nl-AT-cc101998a>
> for <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>;
> Sat, 8 Feb 2003 15:06:31 +0100
> From: Tudor Georgescu <tgeorgescu-AT-home.nl>
> To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at
> mail.virginia.edu
> Subject: RE: The Fluttering Moth of Marburg
> Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 15:06:23 +0100
> Organization: Intellect Club
> Message-ID: <000201c2cf7b$465a3840$8989ccd4-AT-cc101998a>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="US-ASCII"
> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
> In-Reply-To: <6f.34e5bf78.2b759b99-AT-aol.com>
> Importance: Normal
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by
> lists.village.Virginia.EDU id JAA07173
> Sender: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>
>
>
Cheers,
Jud.
<A HREF="http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ ">http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/</A>
Jud Evans - ANALYTICAL INDICANT THEORY.
<A HREF="http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com">http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com</A>
--part1_47.2a1ce8d2.2b768884_boundary
HTML VERSION:
Subj:RE: The Fluttering=20Moth of Marburg
Date:08/02/2003 14:07:23 GMT Standard Time
From: tgeorgescu-AT-home.nl (Tudor Georgescu)
Sender: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Reply-to: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> (1) Heidegger - "Being is always the Being of a being."
> (1a) Use of "is" in relation to "Being." How can "Being" possible "be"
>if it's not a thing and doesn't exist?
Yes, because the to be (a.k.a. Being) is the fact something is (rather than
no thing is). The to be is thus the condition of all things' existence.=20To
say the to be is not, this is nihilism, because it grounds things on
somebeing that does not exist.
> (2) Heidegger - "to define anew the kind of Being."
> (2a) Being (which doesn't exist) can be categorized.
> How does one categorise nothing?
Definition: the to be is total, fundamental and absolute. It is the Whole. I
proved above that nihilism is nonsensical, for something is. The Nothing is
an existence (a being), yet the most empty one. But, it seems it is pretty
malleable, since it fills all the "empty" places inside substances.
> (3) Heidegger - "the Being of this being"
>(3a) "Being" can "belong" to someone?
> How can something, which is not a thing - and therefore is a nothing,
> [although it is impossible either to be a nothing or not to be a nothing]
> belong to someone?
"Being of this being" is the fact that being is. Following this line of
thought, we can say, more exactly, that the to be is not, but it is
to-be-ing. Only its creation, the "is" is. Herein pops up the distinction
between the potential and dynamics. The potential exists potentially (it is
to-be-ing), and only its instantiations exist dynamically (they are). We see
that here we reconciled realism with mentalism: world is both real
(objectual) and mental (virtual). How can we conceive such a world? See
http://members.home.nl/tgeorgescu/2questions.html for its knowability. Thus,
the to be is not a thing, but it generates all things. It is the virtual
coexistence of all virtualities, and it enforces its domination upon beings
(existences) by generating the dynamics (also known as objectual reality in
previous mindframes).
> (4) Heidegger - "the basic constitution of their Being."
> (4a) "Being" has a "constitution?"
> How can something, which does not exist "have" a "constitution?"
> Reminder: "Constitution" is the way in which someone or something is
composed.
Besides begging the question, you confuse the general the to be with the way
of being of particular beings. We can imagine the to be only as being
equally present in all places, undivided and without any distinction in=20its
spatial/substantial configuration. Therefore, its constitution is the
Oneness, defined above as total, fundamental and absolute.
> (5) Heidegger - "the realm of Being called nature"
> (5a) "Being" is to be in a "realm."
> How can "Being" have any "realm" if it doesn't exist?
It definitely does not present itself as a whole in any instance (thus we
deny the holistic thought). But, it presents itself by creating for us a
framework (the nature) within which we have to cope or face the
psychiatrists. Therefore, nature is defined by the unalienable willingness
to be, and it is thus the to be's realm.
> (6) Heidegger - "this being's (man's) kind of Being."
> (6a) Though non-existent it comes in various "kinds."
> How can "Being" {which doesn't exist} be sorted out into different=20"kinds"
> How is this sorting carried out and who is it that does the sorting?
Heidegger circumscribed man's way of being by its capacities: he is having a
body, he is in the world, he is emotional, he is understanding-able, he=20is
with the others, etc. These are a priori knowledge about the being of every
possible man, even when some of the above capacities seem to be lacking. Of
course, here the Christian believes the to be is a big Dasein, yet
Heidegger's philosophy avoided such theological standpoints, possibly from
fear of being misunderstood as a fideist.
> (7) Heidegger - "the term Dasein, as a pure expression of Being,"
> (7a) So "Being" is not a "Being" - it's a being Being-There?"
This expresses that the human is a way of being, which (potentially and/or
dynamically) understands the to be in its motivations and aims. It can
understand itself as an existence, which is a pure expression of the
Existence, as a drop is an analysis (abstract) of the ocean.
> (8) Heidegger - "The "soul" which constitutes the Being of man"
> (8a) Oops! Now it's not a "Being" anymore - it a "soul." Well God luv a
duck!
Mark 8:37 and Luke 12:20 seem to suggest that "soul" means the personal
existence, the ability of being situated in a world. See the 2questions=20for
an analysis.
> (9) Heidegger - "a being which in conformity with its kind of Being"
> (9a) So a being can conform with or to something that doesn't exist?
He was trying to render that one cannot jump over his own shadow, i.e.
become something else than he is meant to become, in the limitations due to
human's constitution and its thrownness.
> (10) Heidegger - "its most proper Being."
> (10a) So "Being" [though it is non-existent] can be described
> adjectivally as having all the qualities typical of the thing specified?
Proper means one's own. It probably means the essence of each person, which
is a being which actualizes in his/her person.
> (11) Heidegger - " the specific constitution of the Being of Dasein"
> (11a) Things get even more curious - now the "constitution" of
> "Being" can be described "specifically."
He means that we are different from each other.
> (12) Heidegger - " It only brings out the Being of this being"
> (12a) So the invisible, non-existent "Being" can be "brought out"
> now - OK the floor is yours - let's see it please?
One can express himself/herself or fail at this.
> (13) Heidegger - " separating the regions of Being".
> (13a) Ah! Now we get down to the nitty-gritty - although "Being"
> doesn't exist it can be separated into "regions". How is this
> separation accomplished? This is REALLY exciting. Please rush me
> the details.
We know that existence, as any other substance, can be divided in pieces or
domains.
> (14) Heidegger - " the structures and concepts of Being"
> (14a) So "Being" has "structure" Pray tell us how this "structure"
> is built using non-existent materials? If it has structure" how is
> it "destructured or restructured or restructured?"
Some of the structure we see, for example, in a computer, which is an
existence (but not a Dasein). Another structures are our psychological and
spiritual structures, which cannot be seen, but they exist, though.
> (15) Heidegger - " the Temporality of Being."
> (15a) So this non-existent structure exists in time does it?"
It manifests itself by creating the time, as its (actual and possible)
horizon of revelation.
> (16) Heidegger - " the constitution of Being of the "occurrence" of
Dasein"
> (16a) So "Being-There" has an "occurrence" does it - most people thing
> that it is the entity that occurs rather than the being of the being-there
> of that entity? Perhaps you mean that the Being of a being, and the Being
of
> its Being-There happen at the same time? But it can't can it=20- for
Heidegger
> has already said that: "Being" is "soul?"
Well, for us, the to be is certainly an occurrence. We first meet it as
"outside" in order to recognize it later everywhere. Therefore, what we
first have is our soul (without knowing that it is our soul) and later can
we speak about other souls and the existence in general.
> that being is called "Being-There"
For me, it is always called being-here (if I speak of myself).
Gigantomachia peri tes ousias!
Tudor Georgescu
http://intellect-club.nl.eu.org
--- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005