File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0307, message 150


From: amscult-AT-drake.edu
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:42:39 -0500
Subject: Re: ...shorter of breath and one day closer to death


Stepping (or butting, depending on which part of the anatomy you notice 
first)in, where I have no right or reason to be, I, with all respectful 
apologies to Michael and Judd and  with utter(udder) respect for  their 
fascinating, hard-working attempt at communication between a world that exists 
(and only that) and a world that is (and so much more than that) must observe 
that whereas Michael shows he can see and say Jud's seeing and saying because 
Jud's seeing and saying is only that,Jud cannot see and say the seeing and 
saying which lies behind Michael's capacity to see and say Jud's seeing and 
saying because what Michael sees and says is a seeing and saying beyond just 
Michael's seeing and saying.  The proof is in the pudding, as they say. That 
much,anyone can see and say.

Best regards,

Allen





Quoting GEVANS613-AT-aol.com:

> Michael:
> In a spirit of going-along-with (not agreeing-with; agreement/disagreement 
> and their kin only agreeable to wimps and democrats of the thinking world) a
> 
> certain kind of thinking, I'd like to lend this 
> 
> A certain kind of thinking [I have 'in mind'] will utter statements like:
> 
> 1) Speaking (responsibly, philosophically) of that which does not exist is 
> speaking nonsense (because it speaks of nothing) and thus is itself a kind of
> 
> nonsense (speaking about itself); thus to speak responsibly one must only
> speak 
> of that which exists because speaking of anything else is speaking nonsense 
> and speaking nonsense is to proliferate nonsense; speaks of nothing) and thus
> 
> 
> Jud: 
> I welcome your spirit of going-along-with, together with your sequence of 
> thoughtful statements, in order to see where it takes us.
> It is true that speaking (responsibly, philosophically) of that which does 
> not exist or has never existed as IF IT DID OR DOES exist is [as you
> correctly 
> say]  itself a kind of nonsense (speaking about itself.)
> 
> Michael:
> 2) Abstract nouns (like love, freedom, matter, being, dancing, time, atom, 
> etc) signify, denote, things that do not exist. 
> 
> Jud: 
> Yes, the denotata [the actual objects referred to by the linguistic 
> expression of  'vacuous names' - abstract nouns, which you mention, do not
> exist in 
> themselves and are in fact not denotata at all, [they denote nothing] but
> rather 
> are merely designata and instead describe either the activities of certain 
> things that DO exist, such as: lovers, humans and animals that are free,
> beings, 
> dancers, or are in the case of matter and atoms, cover-names [universalisms]
> 
> for the unspecified activities of those existents of which they are said to 
> comprise. The abstraction 'time' is slightly different in that it is [like 
> mathematics and geometry etc.,] purely and simply another type of vitally
> important 
> abstract 'scientific' human concept in that it enables us to create order out
> 
> of disorder. 
> 
> Michael:
> 3) Thus employing abstract nouns in the responsible speech of philosophers is
> 
> speaking of that which does not exist, and is therefore an example of 
> irresponsible speech, speech that speaks of nothing (since only that which
> is, that 
> which exists, is worthy of responsible speech), and thus is analytically 
> nothing itself (it is analytically silent, it says nothing. 
> 
> Jud: 
> There is nothing wrong with philosophers employing abstract nouns in their 
> responsible speech when speaking of that which does not exist, if in doing so
> it 
> is acknowledged that what is being spoken of is not the existence of such 
> putative entities, but the activity, manner, states or modes of actual
> entities, 
> like humans and other existing entities.  Neither is it ontologically valid
> as 
> in the case of abstract universalistic compounds like matter, stuff, and 
> being etc., to refer to such abstractions as examples of the tangible 
> that-which-exists that can be found in the cosmos.
> 
> As I mentioned in relation to the word 'cloud' in a previous post, it is 
> possible to be more specific and describe in more detail the multitude of
> closely 
> proximate H20 molecules etc., but it is much easier to employ the short-cut 
> term 'cloud' in order to avoid the constant repetition of long sentences.
> From 
> an ontological perspective however it is important to be aware that what we 
> term by the collective noun expression 'a cloud' is actually the way in which
> 
> those uncountable condensations of water atoms are existing as contingent 
> millions of water atoms consisting of certain molecules.
> 
> Michael: {precisely}); 
> Walking along with this form of thinking, I notice a certain problem (that 
> is, a problem for that kind of thinking, not for my kind of thinking); it can
> be 
> stated fairly in this form: Looking carefully at statement (2) we notice that
> 
> "abstract nouns" is itself an abstract noun in that it derives its signifying
> 
> power from abstracting from certain terms, nouns, that are commonly and 
> sometimes uncommonly employed in speech about things, what is common or
> essential 
> in such nouns as "love", "matter", "being", "atom", etc; i.e., the term 
> "abstract-noun" [which I hyphenate in order to render the integrity of the
> term] is 
> itself an abstract noun. Thus, from (2) we have a statement that says
> something 
> about something that does not exist (what the abstract noun "abstract-nouns"
> 
> signifies, denotes); from (1), this means that (2) says nothing, speaks 
> irresponsibly, speaks in a manner inadmissible to the community of
> responsible 
> (philosophical) speakers. In this sense, statement (2) cannot be made 
> (analytically, that is; concretely, of course, it can be uttered) by a
> thinker who claims 
> statement (1), because statement (3). 
> 
> Jud: 
> Alas, it only it were so simple that certain types of philosophers employed 
> abstract nouns by way of a signifying power from abstracting from certain 
> terms, nouns, that are commonly and sometimes uncommonly employed in speech
> about 
> things.
> The truth is that they take a fatal and highly improper step forward to that
> 
> and do not restrain their use of abstractions to speaking ABOUT things - but
> 
> transmogrify the abstractions themselves INTO things [entities]
> 
>  I think that you are overcomplicating a very simple concept. Obviously the 
> existential modalities of that which exists is extremely important for 
> philosophical discussion, in that if things did not exist in certain
> modalities then 
> they wouldn't exist in the first place, and there would be no entities or 
> philosophers to talk about those entities. The meaning of an abstract noun is
> that 
> unlike proper nouns they have no existential denotatum. All words including 
> proper nouns - nomina propria  [proper names] are abstractions - not just 
> abstract nouns, count nouns, and mass and collective nouns. The key to an 
> understanding of the way in which we talk about that which exists and that
> which does 
> not exist is in the DENOTATION and REFERENCE, not in which words are abstract
> 
> and which are not. The criterion is whether what the word points to, labels
> or 
> denotes exists spatio-temporally, or whether it doesn't. THAT is the
> important 
> thing for philosophy, and that is why philosophy is actually in effect a 
> discussion about the MEANING of abstractions, [words] and what [if anything]
> the 
> words denote. So for me, and those who would speak in a similar way to I, a 
> philosopher only speaks irresponsibly, speaks in a manner inadmissible to the
> 
> community of responsible (philosophical) speakers, if in the employment of
> verbal 
> communicative abstractions, [words in general - not just abstract-nouns] he 
> claims that those preternatural words amongst them which are denotataless 
> actually exist in a spatio-temporal manner as denoted denotata. Therefore I 
> completely agree with you when you say that 'abstract-noun' is itself an
> abstraction, 
> and add as I have mentioned above that ALL words are abstractions, but some
> of 
> those abstractions point to denotata that do not exist - and some do not. 
> 
> Michael:
>  If such a thinker claims in response to this apparent contradiction that we
> 
> only use such abstract nouns for communicative convenience purposes, i.e., 
> that they have utilitarian value but should not be taken seriously otherwise,
> I 
> should have to say -- why? Why if they denote nothing should we (of the 
> responsible, philosophic community) ever employ them? 
> 
> Jud: 
> The discussion [for me] is not that the concepts alluded to by the use such 
> abstract nouns for communicative convenience purposes, should not be taken 
> seriously [the more seriously they are taken the better as far as I am
> concerned] 
> but the fact that in ontological enquiry the acceptance of these abstractions
> 
> as real and actual things transmutes such a discussion from that of a serious
> 
> one to that of a frivolous one. In non-ontological discussion or natural 
> language it is perfectly fine to make such statements as: 'Love will find a
> way' 
> or: 'The desperate desire for peace in the Middle East is the chief player in
> 
> the ongoing discussions between both parties,' but in strict ontological 
> discussion it is vitally important that all parties realise that there is in
> actual 
> fact nothing that exists in the world spatio-temporally that is denoted by
> the 
> abstract nouns 'Love' or the abstract construction: 'The desperate desire for
> 
> peace in the Middle East' but rather that the words are verbal descriptional
> 
> enclosures to describe the general human capacity and activity of loving 
> themselves or another person, persons or things, and that also 'The desperate
> desire 
> for peace in the Middle East' is not an actual entity, but the emotional 
> feelings shared by a vast multitude of people from both sides of the divide.
> 
> 
> Michael: 
> How can they be "useful" if they denote nothing? 
> 
> Jud: 
> Not only are such words useful, but abstractions are vitally important in 
> human communication, for whilst they denote 'nothing' in a Parmenidesian 
> ontological sense, [they have no spatio-temporality] as descriptions of the
> manner or 
> way in which actual entities exist, they are invaluable as cognitve tools by
> 
> which we communicate complicated ideas about such behaviour and its effects
> on 
> the said entity and the entities such behaviour affects.
> 
> Michael: 
> Is nothingness so useful, but cannot be included in the "serious" lexicon of
> 
> serious responsible thinkers? Note, that I am not contesting the statements
> as 
> to the existence or non-existence of certain entities or beings, only the 
> coherence of the statements themselves. 
> 
> Jud: 
> The word 'nothingness' is only 'useful' to analytic philosophers inasmuch as
> 
> it is necessary to use the word when in conversation which such philosophers
> 
> who actually believe that such a significatum exists. In the same way the
> word 
> God is vitally important to atheist inasmuch as it is necessary to use the 
> word when in conversation which such transcendentalists who actually believe
> that 
> such a thing exists. 
> 
> Michael: 
> The very serious and involved question as to how statements can signify 
> anything that exists or does not exist, has not yet been raised. 
> 
> Jud:
> I have raised the very serious and involved question as to how statements can
> 
> signify anything that exists or does not exist, continually in this forum 
> repeatedly ad nauseam with my exegesis of Heidegger's oneiric text with 
> remarkable tenacity and consistency for the past five years. 
> 
> Michael: 
> I am simply suggesting that statement (2) is something that cannot 
> responsibly be said by one who says statement (1), and is thus, analytically,
> 
> impossible. And what follows from this? Such a thinker might have to
> reconsider either 
> what is said to exist (and not exist) or to re-examine statement (1) itself
> and 
> perhaps include speech that speaks of what does not exist as responsible 
> allowable philosophical speech. If neither, perhaps such a thinker might have
> to 
> dispense with concrete language altogether (become a mystic) since it is full
> 
> of what such a thinker claims does not exist and thus is merely idle chatter
> at 
> best; perhaps better to be silent? 
> 
> Jud: 
> The crux of the matter it appears to me, lies not in what Parmenides said, 
> but what he neglected to say, which was to qualify his statement in the sense
> 
> that speaking (responsibly, philosophically) of that which does not exist AS
> IF 
> IT EXISTED [a la Heidegger] is speaking nonsense. In an ideal world, where 
> there was no transcendentalism, it is doubtful whether materialist
> philosophers 
> would ever have occasion to speak of 'nothingness,' or atheists to speak of 
> 'God,' other than when speaking descriptively of what some people thought and
>  
> talked about [ex-nilio creation and such primitivisms,] in times gone by,
> which 
> to future generations will be on par with the primal superstitions that 
> spirits resided in trees, rocks and running water etc. and that certain
> Biblical 
> characters lived to the age of nigh on a thousand years.
> 
> For regardful consideration.
> 
> Jud.
> 
> 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.f
reewebspace.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 ---
> 




-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/


     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005