Subject: RE: Heidegger on Kant for Rene
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:38:50 +0200
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl>


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.




-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com [mailto:GEVANS613-AT-aol.com]
Verzonden: donderdag 10 april 2003 13:10
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Onderwerp: Re: Heidegger on Kant for Rene


In a message dated 09/04/2003 16:52:12 GMT Daylight Time, R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl writes:


Hi Rene,

I missed out answering this question, so I've come back to it.



Would you call death real or existent, and but not the possibility to die that every Dasein carries with it as long as it is Dasein?

Jud:



I'm always very cautious when I employ the word "real."  The word can be used as an intensifier to suggest a thing is genuine,



"It's a "real" seventeenth century commode."  But most of the time I would use it to verify  some action or state of an entity occurring in fact or actuality -  that the entity undergoing that existential modality or state has a verified existence; not illusory, reified or imagined. If  I said:  "Heidegger is really dead." I would be stating that in my opinion Heidegger is no longer a living entity, but the body of Heidegger  now  exists in that lifeless modality or state of death which we attribute to a human corpse that we call  "dead." I would be asseverating that his body is in a lifeless state of existing, which we call  being "dead."   Death itself of course does not exist, for "death" is no more that a state, and "states" don't exist - only the entities that are or exist  in those states exist



There is no possibility whatsoever that any  "dasein" will ever die, simply because no "dasein" has ever lived.  That which has never existed can never not exist.  "Dasein" is a make-believe or pretend persona or multi-persona in Heidegger's story book for thinkers - a fanciful symbolic representation of the state of existing here [being there] on earth. One can immediately see that there is no state of existing [or being,] for existing, or being, ALREADY IS A STATE and one cannot have a state of a state. One can only exist - one cannot exist in the state of existing, whether that existing is manifested on earth, or Mars or anywhere else in the Solar system.
  Like the "is" question, those that cannot grasp this most basic ontological fact haven't got a snowball in hell's chance of      understanding Heidegger's basic and most profound error - a boner that runs like a fault-line through all his works and renders them invalid.

"Dancing-there" cannot dance - only the dancer dancing there is dancing. 


  All right, Jud, only a dancer is dancing, but it is dancing that makes him a dancer.

 But we've had this earlier on. You cannot be a dancer, or go to a dancing with your wife, without knowing what 'dancing' is.
 You're doing something very strange, Jud. Like anyone you're acting all the while, only when you're reflecting it, you say it is
 impossible. But you have already acted, understood  what belongs to acting, the structure of its time for instance. In order to act,
you have to know of future, and that is: also of past and present. Of course we have the intelligence that enables to deny the 'existence' of time -although the only conclusion can be, that time, like existence, is not a thing- but already your denying takes time, so it 'is' always already and everywhere. You're simply not loyal to your time, you use it and then throw it away. You are
called, but you don't want to answer.
But the question is inevitable, what this 'is' means, that I, you, he, are in. If you say: i cannot *verify* this 'is', I can only *verify*,
check, whether something is there or not, you have already decided what 'is' means. That is: what it HAS to mean, because
where is written that 'is' must mean 'extant', and what 'extant' means?   Who is ordering?

The point is not: do we have a right to bring up ungraspable things like being and time, because that is a rhetorical question,
but how come we have no idea of them, how come that the doings of billions never were, but now are directed to futilities and imbecilities, merely busy with things.
Would i take people and things sec, without seeing them fitting in a wider possibility, and I do that very often, then i am a lunatic
among lunatics. Or is anyone seriously maintaining that car-driving, mobile (debile) phoning, watching tv, signing an insurance
contract, in themselves, are something more than lunacy? Then please go and read some Kafka. "America" is my favourite.
Heidegger says, it is forgetfulness, or: being-away. But this proposition is something, it points to possibilities. Although at first it gives you nothing but the possibility to hear that silence, that reigns amidst all sounds, and that, says Heidegger, is not at all a matter of an elite, but in all of us.

"To hear the soundless, it takes a hearing, that everybody of us has and that nobody is using rightly." ("The leap from being", 7th hour, beginning)


Oh, i've forgotten death...

cheers anyway,

rene





 



 

HTML VERSION:

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com [mailto:GEVANS613-AT-aol.com]
Verzonden: donderdag 10 april 2003 13:10
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Onderwerp: Re: Heidegger on Kant for Rene

In a message dated 09/04/2003 16:52:12 GMT Daylight Time, R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl writes:


Hi Rene,

I missed out answering this question, so I've come back to it.

Would you call death real or existent, and but not the possibility to die that every Dasein carries with it as long as it is Dasein?

Jud:

I'm always very cautious when I employ the word "real."  The word can be used as an intensifier to suggest a thing is genuine,

"It's a "real" seventeenth century commode."  But most of the time I would use it to verify  some action or state of an entity occurring in fact or actuality -  that the entity undergoing that existential modality or state has a verified existence; not illusory, reified or imagined. If  I said:  "Heidegger is really dead." I would be stating that in my opinion Heidegger is no longer a living entity, but the body of Heidegger  now  exists in that lifeless modality or state of death which we attribute to a human corpse that we call  "dead." I would be asseverating that his body is in a lifeless state of existing, which we call  being "dead."   Death itself of course does not exist, for "death" is no more that a state, and "states" don't exist - only the entities that are or exist  in those states exist

There is no possibility whatsoever that any  "dasein" will ever die, simply because no "dasein" has ever lived.  That which has never existed can never not exist.  "Dasein" is a make-believe or pretend persona or multi-persona in Heidegger's story book for thinkers - a fanciful symbolic representation of the state of existing here [being there] on earth. One can immediately see that there is no state of existing [or being,] for existing, or being, ALREADY IS A STATE and one cannot have a state of a state. One can only exist - one cannot exist in the state of existing, whether that existing is manifested on earth, or Mars or anywhere else in the Solar system.
  Like the "is" question, those that cannot grasp this most basic ontological fact haven't got a snowball in hell's chance of      understanding Heidegger's basic and most profound error - a boner that runs like a fault-line through all his works and renders them invalid.

"Dancing-there" cannot dance - only the dancer dancing there is dancing. 


  All right, Jud, only a dancer is dancing, but it is dancing that makes him a dancer. 

 

 But we've had this earlier on. You cannot be a dancer, or go to a dancing with your wife, without knowing what 'dancing' is.

 You're doing something very strange, Jud. Like anyone you're acting all the while, only when you're reflecting it, you say it is

 impossible. But you have already acted, understood  what belongs to acting, the structure of its time for instance. In order to act,

you have to know of future, and that is: also of past and present. Of course we have the intelligence that enables to deny the 'existence' of time -although the only conclusion can be, that time, like existence, is not a thing- but already your denying takes time, so it 'is' always already and everywhere. You're simply not loyal to your time, you use it and then throw it away. You are

called, but you don't want to answer.

But the question is inevitable, what this 'is' means, that I, you, he, are in. If you say: i cannot *verify* this 'is', I can only *verify*,

check, whether something is there or not, you have already decided what 'is' means. That is: what it HAS to mean, because

where is written that 'is' must mean 'extant', and what 'extant' means?   Who is ordering?

 

The point is not: do we have a right to bring up ungraspable things like being and time, because that is a rhetorical question,

but how come we have no idea of them, how come that the doings of billions never were, but now are directed to futilities and imbecilities, merely busy with things.

Would i take people and things sec, without seeing them fitting in a wider possibility, and I do that very often, then i am a lunatic

among lunatics. Or is anyone seriously maintaining that car-driving, mobile (debile) phoning, watching tv, signing an insurance

contract, in themselves, are something more than lunacy? Then please go and read some Kafka. "America" is my favourite.

Heidegger says, it is forgetfulness, or: being-away. But this proposition is something, it points to possibilities. Although at first it gives you nothing but the possibility to hear that silence, that reigns amidst all sounds, and that, says Heidegger, is not at all a matter of an elite, but in all of us.

 

"To hear the soundless, it takes a hearing, that everybody of us has and that nobody is using rightly." ("The leap from being", 7th hour, beginning) 

 

 

Oh, i've forgotten death...

 

cheers anyway,

 

rene