From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com>
Subject: Re: Only that which exists can be studied
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:32:23 -0800


It is because Jud, when you try to express your points of view, you
'abstract' everything, including 'toothpaste', 'cat food' et cetera. You are
constantly 'hypothesizing' every possible combination of rhetorical devising
to make your point, and in doing so you use the very same methods as you are
criticizing.

> Jud:
> Hahaha! If there is no abstraction called 'Being' why is there a so-called
> [illusory] 'Question of Being?' There is no 'Question of Toothpaste?' is
there,
> or 'Question of Cat Food?' is there? There is no [ontological ] question
of
> toothpaste and cat food, because you can go to any store and find it all
stacked
> on the shelves.

Here you have done it again. The ontological question is 'whether something
exists, and what nature is this something' as to region, location. We could
ask the very same question about geo politics: "there is no ontological
question of political economies and capitalism, because you can go to any
university and find it all stacked there on the [library] shelves."

You allusions and examples do not help your case...which is completely
'unclear' as to it's ultimate meaning.

Ontology is the study of 'objects and their connections'....go ask any
paleontologist. Paleontology looks at branches (connections) between
separate species (objects).

> If 'Being' is not an abstraction why can't you put in on the
> shelves alongside any other product and SHOW it or wave you little
> Heideggerian wand and make it APPEAR as part of your Christmastime
Transcendentalist
> Pantomime?

Very simple Jud. Being cannot be used by itself to denote or connote a
single real entity; only a mystic would claim that this is possible, but
again this 'numinous' quality of Being is a 'trained meditative' art found
in Love [eg. Meister' Eckhardt's triad: Being, God and Love].

> All you do is proclaim your FAITH in  the existence of your Daz-white
> magical washing powder which will launder all our souls clean of nasty
> analytical  commonsense and scientific proofs, yet you deny it from an
anxious public
> which is crying out such a miracle super-product.

False. This statement is crystal clear in it's falsity. It is you who are
'scientifically illiterate' and this proves it; in fact this is your
greatest challenge. You are not the only one on this list who is
scientifically illiterate.

For instance I never once wrote anything about 'magical washing powder' nor
about 'laundering' and removing (1) critical thinking, (2) scientific
induction, and (2) commonsense approaches to assessing truth and reality.

You are the one who is doubting these and resorting to delusional beliefs.
The primary delusional belief which you constantly profess is that Heidegger
was the chief of Nazi propaganda during the 1930's. On your website you make
this conspiratorial claim, but fail to support this exaggerated and false
claim with any evidence. In fact, you even cite some letter from Hitler
himself recommending to Goebbels [or someone else] that Heidegger is not
recommended for the job.

I am going to make my judgement here because "thou shalt not judge unless ye
be judged." My finding is that you are extremely illiterate in scientific
thinking, and very immature in reasoning. I only have to prove 'cause' and
thus I find that you are deluded not because it is your intention to delude
yourself, it is because of circumstance. You probable do not actually read
philosophy much; if you did you would be able to be understood by us on this
list, and




If as you say 'there is no
> abstraction called 'Being,' then there is no 'Being'. It is impossible to
> attribute 'Being' to any existing object like toothpaste of cat-food,
because an
> abstraction cannot act as a denotatum but only as a designatum. In which
case
> you are left with 'Being' as an abstraction - as you famously said
yourself
> some years ago to the consternation of the clericals on the list: 'Being
does not
> exist.' If something does not exist then it must be an abstraction -
right?

False. For you to say this, deny an assertion, means that it exists. Being
has no 'reality', except as perceived in the moment of time, wholistically.
Everything else is 'mediated by thought' [language, memory, et cetera].

> 'Even your beloved honeyballs Heidegger says in B&T:
>
> 'Being' cannot be defined by attributing beings to it. Being cannot be
> derived from higher concepts by way of definition and cannot be
represented by lower
> ones. But does it follow from this that 'Being' can no longer constitute a
> problem? By no means. We can conclude only that 'Being' is not something
like
> being. Thus the manner of definition of beings, which has its
justification
> within limits - the 'definition' of traditional logic, which is itself
rooted in
> ancient ontology--cannot be applied to Being. The undefinability of Being
does
> not dispense with the question of meaning but compels that question.

Now you have changed the subject to defining Being as a Universal, the most
universal, and the most broad. What to do? As I said being is only defined
with pedication. You wonder around making wide asserts and fail to stick to
the topic of being.

What I think you are doing is talking about Being as a highest principle
organizing all experience. That is a mystical form of contemplative or
meditative practice. We are not discussing now any 'entity' in particular,
but the highest organizing principle in EXISTENCE. If you can concentrate on
the meaning and purpose of the Highest Principle organizing your world and
the world of others, then it is going to be 'tremendous' [tremendum et
fascinam] <both terrible <awesome> and fascinating> at the same time. As a
child first sees, so it is with all humans encountering - rather than
countering - the awesomeness of Being in it's infinite and eternal silence,
and cacophony. The term Being does not denote ORDER nor SEMBLENCE yet, for
this to occur we need to separate out other universals associated with Being
It Self. We have to first Love Being. We know nothing of God other than of
Love which is God's only known attribute. Of course we could use a
'non-anthromorphic term' such as Prime Mover, but even movement for a human
is anthropocentric [ie. it moves either away or to me or us], which denotes
that our knowledge of movement is perspectival rather than universal, or
non-inferential. We are more interested in 'non-inferential wisdom' and not
the lower descendents of wisdom.

To work through each of these we need to take up the task SEQUENTIALLY, much
like building a sound house apon a solid foundation and footing. What we do
is we sequentially THIN out the chaff and whey so to speak in our analysis.
If we are going to argue we are wasting our time about wisdom which is
'non-inferential', for no arguing is necessary for non-inferential wisdom.


gotta go

JohnF


>
> John:
> Being is the broadest and most universal categories and refers to all that
> 'is' in any sense.
>



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