From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:24:43 EDT Subject: possible misunderstanding In a message dated 23/06/2003 12:33:38 GMT Daylight Time, R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl writes: Subj: RE: possible misunderstanding Date: 23/06/2003 12:33:38 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 A possibility that might very well 'exist' Rene: Sorry. Happiness, LIKE victories, can be despicable. Meanwhile, when you want to talk about the aims of mankind, you've got to have an idea of what man is. But you "faggotly" are forgetting that all the time, because of your ontological angst to commit.. my fuzzy formulating could lead here to a nasty misunderstanding. i just wanted to say that to humans 'ontological commitment' (Quine) is inevitable. In "What is metaphysics" H exposes, what belongs to a metaphysical question: 1. it regards beings-as-a-whole 2. the questioner himself is put into question. (questioning belongs to the way of being of man: to Dasein. Even escaping from, denying 'being', is a way of being. Jud: For me there is nothing metaphysical about regarding, contemplating or thinking about human beings as a whole or of the "entitic macrocosm" which is my own ontological shortcut for that which exists in the cosmos. What is so specially "metaphysical about that? Obviously when a faggoty nominalist like me contemplates the universe and what's in it, he doesn't exclude himself from the equation. Why would anyone want to exclude him or herself from any consideration of the cosmos? Certainly no gerundial plug-in is required to facilitate this contemplation - why would we want a "being there" to trip over when we are stumbling around looking heavenward at the dark velvet of space studded with God's jewels above that plays hide and seek in the clouds above? :-) Escaping from or denying "Being" is a way of being a denier - not a way of "Being." Rene: Nietzsche is more consequently: corp.: is more consequent, prob. 'consistent' is better: the end of God is the end of man. And of his happiness. Happiness as a pseudo-religious end is faggottish nihilism, uncomparingly worse than all religion so far. no corrections needed here. Jud: Tell that to the happy-clappy brigade. ;-) Hallelujah! Rene: Juenger suspects that the first stirring of science can be traced back to the monk orders. Jud: That makes sense, for the rest of the population were too busy slaving away in the fields in the pissing rain to in order to support the monasteries and pay the tithes. Rene: He considers the invention of the mechanical clock - according to legend its inventor is the pope Sylvester II, who is surrounded by a magical aura - a crucial moment. Jud: At least whilst he was fiddling around the escapements he was leaving the thurifers alone. Rene: He sees a line from here to Faust's cabinet. Jud: Which one -the drinks cabinet? Rene: At last the 19th century professors, to whom, besides the Buckle's and Bernard's also belong Marx and Nietzsche, have procured the definitive preparation of science as it is now in our plundering age. (earth as provider - Goethe Faust 2) Faggot history, however, is the history that -o sancta simplicitas - culminates in ... faggots. (variant of the origin of species) --- (all Hegel) Something else: i heard that in hospitals terminal patients are collocated into a 12-step traject - a sort of roadmap to .... 'Yes sir, you're now in phase 9, a little patience and it will all be over nicely...' Jud: Sounds a bit like the step methodology of Alcoholics Anonymous only less traumatic by all reports? [no, I don't speak from personal experience] :-) Rene: So I counter Jud's accusation of Heideggerian morbidity with this merry horror of not being capable of dying anymore. Jud: I have always felt that perhaps Heidegger would have been better off as a provincial undertaker hamming it up in the heimat, rather than hamming it as a hermeneutician. He looks a bit like an undertaker on his photographs, and as he was obsessed with death he could have easily arranged to have his lunch-breaks in the morgue. ;-) That is: not being capable of ... living anymore. Just functioning, as long as one is usable, will be the highest reachable. You might not agree, but that's how Heidegger thought. Jud: Why didn't he top himself then like Koestler and Hemingway did? All in good fun Rene" ;-) regards, The Faggot of the Opera. "You do pay a price for stating it simply, namely it's easier for the professionals to misunderstand it." John Searle --The Philosophers' Magazine, Autumn 1999 -- 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> --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed --- This message may have contained attachments which were removed. Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005