From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:36:38 EDT Subject: ... shorter of breath and one day closer to death Subj: Re: ... shorter of breath and one day closer to death Date: 29/07/2003 05:41:20 GMT Daylight Time From: amscult-AT-DRAKE.EDU 1) Making speeches concerning that which does not exist is speaking nonsense and is thus unacceptable as responsible philosophical speech; only speech about what exists is acceptable; Allen writes: But the fact is that speech (Sprache) exists before it even gets to "about." This always-already-in-existence of speech, philosophical or otherwise presents itself to philosophy as what it is. Jud: Speech (Sprache) is a code - a collection of conjoined symbols which are employed by the embrained body for the purposes of the communication of ideas. It is up to philosophers, [in fact there is no alternative] to use that inherited method of encrypted ideation [language] to communicate. If you think about it - it is not so much the code that we inherit - though it is definitely a 'given' as you say - but the human ideas as passed to us by others, which, after they have been processed through our 'neuronal treatment plant' we communicate to others using that code. Some philosophers don't seem to spend much time upon this bothersome processing of the ideas of others, but rather issue or upchuck them out again almost unchanged and unrecognisable from the form in which they entered the plant. This type of thinker is often further identified by the tremendous amount of quotation [sometimes wholesale chunks of thinking] of others, which are represented [by association] as 'his' thinking. This type of philosopher is also distinguished by the habit of insinuating that the reason that somebody doesn't agree with his regurgitative re-creation of the ideas of others is because the disagreeing other is simply not capable of understanding these second-hand ideas in the first place, and therefore is to be reduced to a mere observational spectator of the psyche-less, sublimation-free, projectionless, sexless thoughts of the REAL philosophers, whilst they go about their diligent regurgitational rituals, and the writing of their regurgitational articles and books. My stance has always been that we must AT LEAST TRY thinking for ourselves, and begin to attempt to purge ourselves of the preconceptions born from our exposure to the ideas of others, including the familial, societal. political and religious influences which we have experienced. To me it seems that a good place to start [a la DesCartes] is a consideration of what exists and what does not exist. When I first heard of Heidegger's work Being and Time - I was naturally curious and drawn to it on the basis that here at last we might have a philosopher who is willing seriously investigate the very ground of that which exists. The result? Upon reading it, it turned out to be yet another seagullish regurgitative account, skilfully enwrapped in meaningless code, and riddled with clever ontological escape-holes, semantic Rubic Cubes and priestly escape-passages. If the code is used improperly, [is at variance with the normal meanings of such code] then confusion and opportunities for ontological obfuscation present themselves. Being and Time is characterised by such an improper use of the code, and it is that which explains its confused and ill thought-out nature. Allen: Poor Jud simply cannot think for himself! He must "observe," which observations( he cannot possibly realize) are the result of assorted psychological sublimations, projections and even actual sexual thoughts, but of absolutely no philosophical value. Jud: Observation, information gathering, is part of the thinking process. I have always been an assiduous observer of all that is around me, hence the individualism of my maturity, and refusal to join unthinking unobservant sheep-like cults, [even those of a materialistic complexion]. Being human, we are all the result of our assorted psychological sublimations, projections, and even actual sexual thoughts, and it is our very ability to unify, amalgamate and commix the cognitive Gesampsumme of the results of this activity of our embrained-bodies, which enables us to arrive a certain philosophical conclusions. Allen: But it is still the case that all you need is love: "Love is all you need." And with that, I put my besotted brain to rest. Jud: More specifically, [though your abstract short-cut is perfectly acceptable in the context in which you have used it] what we need is someone to love us, and ourselves to be in a state whereby we are open to receiving such love, together with someone to love, and for them to be in such a state whereby they are open to receive our love. If both aspects of this equation are not in place, then the semantic paucity and inadequacy of the convenient shortcut is highlighted. In other words, such short cuts, though convenient in natural and normal communication, [though they proliferate throughout the whole body of Heidegger's work] are specifics-deficient, and therefore inadequate, [not up to the job] for serious philosophical discussion or investigation. It is precisely THERE [he stabs his finger] that Heidegger's inadequacy as a thinker manifests itself and is uncovered to the light of the enquiring mind. Allen: No need to respond or otherwise to let this interrupt what might very well be serious discourse. Jud: You know me Allen - always ready to oblige and introduce a bit of light to brighten up those gloomy rooms-of-toil in academia.:-) Best regards, Allen ( not dark yet, but gettin' there). Jud: I was beginning to think that you weren't into observation? :-) regards, Jud. --- 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