From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com>
Subject: Re: Only that which exists can be studied
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:58:12 -0800


<snip>
> Jud:
> If I say that: 'A unicorn is a creature with  a long twisted horn in the
> centre of its head.' I am not existentialising a mythic creture into a
real one,
> but merely reifying a fictive beast for purposes of telling a story or
> describing the sort of fiction that was believed as true in the Middle
Ages.
> I am saying that the word 'Art' is an abstraction that  is an existential
> modality of the activity of the  neuronal networks  of those folk who
believe
> that certain artefacts have an artistic merit.   It is similar to what  I
have
> been saying for years on this list that the word 'Being' is an abstraction
> which is an existential modality of the activity of the  neuronal networks
of
> those folk who believe in the primitive notions of 'Being.,' as  a
mysterious
> secondary  accompaniment  to existents which is for many acts as
existential
> comfort blanket or wet nurse or deistic locum tenens.

You rely on more abstractions and mythic thoughts than even Heidegger. Being
is not a true abstraction, sorry. Being refers to what 'shows' or 'appears'
and also to what is regarded as 'phenomena'. There is no abstraction called
being. Being is the broadest and most universal categories and refers to all
that 'is' in any sense. However there are 'limitations of being' which you
alluded to earlier, such as the 'unicorn' which is a mythic beast; but in
fact there are 'narwhals' which resemble unicorns, or water hippos [hippo
means <horse> in Greek]. Being which is predicated is not a true
abstraction. A 'human being' is not an abstraction. Therefore the being of
humans is something 'concrete': blond hair, blue eyes, and light coloured
skin. For Heidegger, ontology is 'concrete' not abstract; he examines what
it is to feel and to know for a human [dasein].

You should read Being and Time

<snip>

Jud:
> There is no 'ontological situation' or enframent rubbish - there is an
interacting
> nexus of existents which could be lined up in a room and put on show to
the
> public - you and I, our PCs with their hard plastic keyboards, some
samples of
> the metal telephone wires, the service provider's mainframe, all these
things
> are viewable entitic actualities.

Room? What does a room mean? I think this is an abstraction because in the
way you are using the term, you are using it a 'hypothetical proposition'.

You assert there is an 'interacting nexus of existents' and then claim they
'could be'. This indicates to me that you are imagining in an abstract way
something about some entities. Then after this you suggest that these
'interacting nexus of existents' could be 'you and I, our PC's....' But how
are 'you and I' really interacting? Nothing in your deduction about hardware
sorts out how 'you and I' interact. You have failed to provide any analysis
of how we interact, other than suggest that we are interconnected by 'metal
telephone wires'.

Did you mean to suggest that this is 'new' and 'exciting information'a about
reality? I doubt that ISP's use a 'mainframe'....

The central problem with your descriptions of reality is that there is no
'analysis' and that is what philosophy essentially is, analysis. What do you
mean by 'public'? You rely on numerous 'notions' but these you fail to
analyze, and rather, you chronically, in my opinion, 're-state the obvious
and the unremarkable.'


>
> John:
> Matter is an 'abstraction' precisely because not all of us have 5 senses.
> Matter is 'understood' by a Grand Inference, and thus that which is
'solid'
> feeling may only be 'medium density fiberboard' or 'mashed up old growth
tropical
> rainforest trees & birds of paradise nests' mixed up with 'ureal
formaldehyde
> resin' and sold in the Walmart store to students, who eventually throw
their
> desks into the dumpster rather than move the weighty mess around. No
resale
> value on mashed tropical rainforests, no? Buy solid wood oak, and pine,
student
> desks,
>
> Jud:
> I don't now about you and your friends living on the shores of Lake
> Woebegone,  but all of my friends have the normal five senses of sight,
hearing, touch,
>  taste and smell  - what precisely do you mean?  Do you  mistakenly mean a
> SIXTH sense? Are you referring to the blind or the deaf? There is no such
thing
> as 'matter' as I have said umpteen times on this discussion group. Only
that
> which exists exists - matter is a universal and universals don't exist  -
only
> actual individuate entities exist in an uncountable and infinite number of
> existential modalities. The actual examples you mention are variants of
the
> existential modalities [ways of existing] in which  certain objects exist.

I think you are confused here. Universals do exist or you would not be
relying on them to communicate and understand. A universal has no reality,
but it does exist; it's being is 'limited' to a 'class of concepts' in part.
A universal may also be 'embodied' withing a 'real entity' such as the 'sun'
or the 'moon', and in this sense, a universal has a 'mythical existence
symbolizing' intelligence and fertility. The word 'universal' refers to a
'uni-version' in meaning and in purpose. Like I said earlier, art cannot
exist unless it means something, and has a subject.

If matter does not exist, then neither do tables, rooms, nor Jud exists.
Matter is an abstract noun referring to any entity in the universe which
exhibits one or more properties, attributes, features common to entities
composed of matter. Like Heraclitus, "No amount of matter is lacking in
mind, and mind is the thinniest of substances." [or something like this]

The problem with your descriptions again is that there is a lack of
analysis. All you are saying is one single thing:

this exists, that does not exist.

so what?

As Bradley wrote in his "Apperance and Reality", 'ideas are not
real'....which is kind of self-evident. He claims that there is only one
idea which is real, and that is the 'whole' of Reality, the composite world
experienced in the moment. What he means by 'experience' is what I mean by
'felt' or 'feeling'. Heidegger agrees with this too, and the 'umvelt' is not
analyzable when it is experienced. Thus ideas can be separated out about the
felt and sensed world of immediacy, but these 'ideas' are not real. The real
are the actual in the world of now. Heidegger refers to this as
'affectivity', alluding of course to De Anima, Ari.

Also I cannot understand you on some points, for example,

if you analyze what you are thinking, and read some philosophy for once,
then you would be making some accurate and analytical statements which may
interest us all. I think you are 'fishing' for a 'scapegoat' for some
failure recently you perceive as epitomizing all that is wrong. I suspect
that you enjoy trying to 'correct' real philosophers - who took the time and
effort to actually learn and read philosophy - by trying to dominate any
discussion; in fact your website actually, appears to represent  this by
'suggesting' that Heidegger was the philosophical father and founder of
Nazism, or the NDSAP, despite a complete lack of evidence that he was
'engaged' in founding Nazism.

I gotta go,

john F








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