From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 10:40:24 EDT
Subject: A Man of Property



--part1_1ed.9c80adc.2c062458_boundary
Content-Language: en

In a message dated 28/05/2003 14:09:01 GMT Daylight Time,
R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl writes:

Subj: RE: A Man of Property Date: 28/05/2003 14:09:01 GMT Daylight Time From:
R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl (Bakker, R.B.M. de) Sender:
owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Reply-to: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu To:
heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com [mailto:
GEVANS613-AT-aol.com] Verzonden: woensdag 28 mei 2003 13:02 Aan:
heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Onderwerp: A Man of Property

Jud:
We Homo sapiens have developed the BE-word

Rene:
In order to develop this or another word, one must already be. The suspect
entity is this sentence is not "be" but "homo sapiens". Via homo sapiens we
think we know what "be" is. But that is (super)fiction. The biggest fraud ever.

Jud:
There is nothing "suspicious" about a homo sapiens. They can be found all
around you - unhidden - out in the open. "Be" is not an "entity" - it is just a
word - a sign. 'Be' does not exist - it points to the ways that things exist
snip

Rene:
Bolzano has explained being in terms of having. H very probably knew him too.
(do you?)

Jud:
 I know of him but  speaking truthfully I have never read him, believing that
most of what he wrote concerned mathematics.. Could you give me a reference
for his comments on being please?
"Having" presuposers a "haver" - somebody to own or have care of a property.
Can you "have" your own body?  If so who is the proprietor, and who is the
proprietor of the proprietor? Is there some zealous homunculus inside our heads
poring over the deeds of ownership?



Jud: [earlier]

Of course humankind [unlike Heidegger] are too canny for that, and realise
that =E2=80=9Cgreenness=E2=80=9D doesn't exist and therefore cannot be the=20=E2=80=9Cproperty" of
anybody - hence the BE-word, which is no more than the linguistic equivalent of the
= sign.



Rene:

Everybody sees a lot of different things, that all are green. And these
things are not green because I see them, or take them into a linguistic
proposition, but the other way around. If you would read Kant's logic, on common notions,
you could begin to realize what you factually are: a beginner. Or: what has
you: beginner-ship. Not the worst thing to be (had by)



Jud:

Everybody sees a lot of different things, which  [due to various physical
phenomena] APPEAR green. They are referred to as "green"  because you [we] call
them green or whatever equivalent word one uses if one is not an English
speaker. It is precisely these  "common notions" or "folk philosophy" which=20is the
danger to mankind. There is no such thing as "beginnership" - only the beginner
exists - you forgot to take your anti-reification pills.

Jud:
Most of Heidegger's gaffs

Rene:
Now a little honesty: what is it that makes you say this? Remember: you're
old, but also a beginner.

Jud:
His well-known  clowning around with the leaf looking for where the IS-word
was hiding.



Jud

...He actually believed and stated publicly that the =E2=80=9Cis=E2=80=9D in the statement:
=E2=80=9CThe leaf is green," could be found in the leaf itself



Rene:

Well hell no, homo sapiens Jud. *You* still can't get it right. It is
precisely what he denies. What he does say is: however unfindable the 'is' of the
leaf may be, the leaf *is* undoubtedly. You deny that?



Jud:

Look Rene - Look at these words - this is what HE wrote  -not me:

"The leaf is green. " I find the green of the leaf in the leaf itself. But
where is the "is"? I say, nevertheless, the leaf "is"- it itself, the leaf.=20
Consequently the "is" must belong to the visible leaf itself. But I do not "see"
the "is" in the leaf, for it would have to be coloured or spatially formed.
Where and what "is" the "is"?

It's not for me to deny or defend anything - it's his gaff not mine. He
didn't understand that the IS-word refers to the green modality in which the leaf
exists and that the IS-word was being used copuletically, and NOT to the fact
that it exists [is present as an entity]  in the first place. The whole of his
philosophy is crippled by his inability to grasp this fact.

Hahaha! Heidegger you old fool!  Of COURSE the leaf exists - it wouldn't be
called the leaf if it didn't. His mind was too addled by drums and uniforms=20 to
take it all in.

snip

Rene:
The what-about of philosophy (contrary to sciences) is never clear. To
Aristoteles it is the hypokeimenon, to Descartes the (human) subject. These=20are also
not concrete things. So they're all gaffs?

Jud:
You are employing rhetoric instead of sensible consideration. There is a big
difference between understanding and talking about abstract ideas and talking
abot and not understanding abstract ideas. Heidegger talked about the IS-word
at great length, [mostly and typically in the form of questions] but he had=20no
understanding of the subject whatsoever - AND ADMITTED IT.

Heidegger wrote:
"Fairly concretely: hypokeimenon is the presence [Anwesen] of an island or
the mountains (ein Gebirg), and when one is in Greece, this Anwesen catches=20the
eye [springt ins Auge]. Hypokeimenon is, as a matter of fact, the being in its
lay/position [das Seiende in seiner Lage], so as it shows itself [so wie es
sich sehen laesst], that is: that, which is there [da], before the eyes, how
it, from itself, protracts itself [wie es da von sich selbst her sich hinzieht].
That's how the mountains lie in the land and the island in the sea."



Heidegger was obviously under the impression that inert objects were capable
of intentionality and participating in children's hide and seek games.
Ignoring for a moment the gaucherie of depicting "presence=E2=80=9D or "Anwesen" or
"hypokeimenon," [rather than that which is present,] as "catching the eye."



Rene:

And he who philosophizes about the homo sapiens knows what he's talking about?



Jud:

It's you that doesn't know what I'm talking about -  not me.   ;-)  I however
KNOW what you are talking about and reject it.

Rene:
I see here books about saurians, wherein they are handled like pets. A homo
sapiens is just another saurian.

Jud:
Obviously you have been deeply hurt by someone in your life - want to share
your problems? A problem shared is a problem halved. :-)

Rene: from homo to homo (thanks to being-with),

Jud:
Speak for yourself. ;-)  [maybe you don't know that "homo" means "a gay
person"  in Britain?


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_1ed.9c80adc.2c062458_boundary

HTML VERSION: