From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 09:07:49 EDT
Subject: Re: ta onta



--part1_140.faadd23.2bd3f5a5_boundary

In a message dated 20/04/2003 07:34:44 GMT Daylight Time, 
michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk writes:


> Subj:ta onta
> Date:20/04/2003 07:34:44 GMT Daylight Time
> From:    michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk (michaelP)
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anthony attempted to clarify his position with:
> 
> >> >... misinterpretations which violate the very distinction 
>> > between the ontic and the ontological in the first place. Such 
>> > misinterpretations give the mistaken impression that Heidegger's 
>> ontology 
>> > lends an enlightened status to certain ontic positions, such as 
>> > environmentalism, globalism, or anti-capitalism, when it does absolutely 
>> > nothing of the kind...
>> 
> Quite so. Also, I think another related misinterpretation lives on: that 
> 

Jud:
Yes, but what the Heideggerian protagonists are continually arguing about is 
what is "ontic" and what is "ontological"

Michael:
whereas I have always thought the difference lies rather in the *way of 
thinking* about such things, issues, stances; i.e., in a sense, in *what 
> one reveals* concerning such things, etc, of thinking, of discourse, of 
> 

Jud:
Surely the way of thinking about anything whatsoever normally results in 
coming to a conclusion of some sort, even if the conclusion is that one 
cannot arrive at a conclusion?   All that you say depends on what  you mean 
or understand by the word "ontic" and "ontology," for as ontology is 
concerned with the philosophical investigation of "existence" or "being,"  
then presumably that which is described as "ontic"  is that which exists or 
"is" something that can be "studied" as a subject of "ontological 
investigation?" It follows that  this means that it depends on what you mean 
by "existence" or "Being," so please enlighten me as to what "Being" is as 
far as you or Heidegger [or anybody else] is concerned?  For me it is 
perfectly crystal clear and unambiguous -  "Being"  doesn't  exist other than 
as a pretend idea and grammatical conjugate that for some bizarre reason 
Heidegger got it into his head  had been "forgotten," (although the church 
had been nattering on about it for two thousand years) and that "it" was 
waiting slyly and coyly , like some grinning metaphysical medieval  gargoyle 
to be magically "revealed" to him as being  "there again,"  waiting behind 
the ontological curtains,  (or perhaps having never gone away) to be 
"investigated"  by him by and through  his twisted version  of his "house of 
language," with its fictive foundations, false bearing beams, reificational 
rafters and semantically unsound load-bearing lingual  lintels.  :-)

Michael:

I think that the only way (human) ontological thinking can proceed (without 
attempting to god it, i.e., by speaking in a silent way of non-beings, 
> etc) is *by and through* the ontic, especially given that all speech *about* 
> 

Jud:
No, it is not the speech about the ontic which is ontic - it is the ontic 
that is ontic.  Speaking about the ontic is an activity of   human  ontic 
entities. To speak of "non-beings" is (as Parmenides says) to speak about 
"nothing," for "non-beings" and "non-existents" do not exist,  and therefore 
fall into the category  of "thoughts concerning designata not having 
existence or being or actuality," or "things of the imagination," like Dasein 
or Polly Garter's knickers. What is "speaking in a silent way" other than "
thinking?"  One doesn't speak or think  "by and through" the ontic, unless 
one speaks by telephone, or through an interpreter, or a serving-hatch - one 
speaks "about" the ontic surely?   It is perfectly OK to speak about thoughts 
and imaginings concerning non-existing non-beings as long as one doesn't 
pretend that one is talking about real things and doing nothing more than 
participating in a pseudo-philosophy, or  transcending the ontic on the 
up-elevator to the department of " Philosophical Pretence."

The "Great Pretender" Heidegger says: "Let us pretend or imagine that there 
is a thing called "Dasein, and let us further make believe that he/she/it 
stands for all human beings, or humanity being present in the world."  If one 
acknowledges that Heideggerianism is no more than a philosophical  doctor and 
nurses game of deitic delusion  -   then that is fine - at least it 
demonstrates that  one has the common sense to see through the jiggery-pokery 
-  but if one is seen to take it seriously then...well...one can't expect 
people not to raise their eyebrows a little?

Michael:
    even furthermore, I think that Plato understands this perfectly in the 
dialogues whereupon interlocutors discuss this and that with Socrates but 
> Plato's Socrates unearths, resurrects, reveals something *other* through and 
> in his interlocutors' speeches (this process is somewhat reversed in the 
> Parmenides but the principle is the same). And it is this attempt to catch 
> a glimpse of the be-ing of beings through and in beings that prevents the 
> Platonic dialogues and Allen's Mosaic story (e.g.) from being merely 
> clever, but ultimately banal, pleasantries.
> 
> Jud:
     In the absence of  secular authority, as was the case at the bottom of 
the mountain, [which I too have climbed, but without being spoken to ] the 
bringing of the tablets  was timely and  fortuitous.  It is ironic that in 
Baghdad right now there is a similar turning to divine rather than secular 
law in the absence of  civil authority American, Iraqi or otherwise. The 
trouble starts when the theocratic administration persists and replaces or 
dominates the civil authority. If that happens then the Bush-Blair escapade 
will have dire consequences for the west  in which the damage to the WTC will 
appear a mere bagatelle and could end in the ultimate religious armegeddon 
that would mean ontic and ontological curtains for us all.


Michael:
Happy Easter and Passover to All

Jud:
Hear!  Hear! 

> 
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_140.faadd23.2bd3f5a5_boundary

HTML VERSION: