Subject: RE: Will de Power and the Burning Bush
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:14:27 +0200
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl>




-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
[mailto:owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]Namens
GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Verzonden: maandag 21 juni 2004 16:54
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
CC: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Onderwerp: Will de Power and the Burning Bush


Malcolm, Allen,
 
Of course, who else? But what if someone says: language, also your speaking  
for yourself, means lastly not that a subject speaks, but that words speak,  
sound, through you (per-sona). 
 
Jud: 
Words are non-substantial aspects of human neurophysiological human  activity 
converted into sound waves for purposes of communication from one human  
holism to another.
 
Rene:
You seem to know more than I do, Jud.
 
Jud: 
Possible I do — but I am far too modest and polite  to be presumptuous  
enough to say so. ;-)
BTW the many capitals that follow are only for emphasis and are NOT abusive  
or shouting.
 
 Rene: 
Yours is a subspecies of the subjective conception of language that you  
share with all the others. Meanwhile everybody speaks words that he did not  make. 
Where do they come from, words? 
 
Jud: 
EVERYONE speaks with words that they DID make. It is physically impossible  
to speak other people's words — only THEY can do that. It IS possible however 
to  speak the SAME words as another person — but THAT is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT 
 thing. The trouble with that is that OTHER PEOPLE'S WORDS may not carry the 
SAME  MEANING as YOUR own use of the same words. 

   But that is a problem only AFTER they've understood the meaning of the word,
   without which they even could not quarrel over the meaning.
   This everyday understanding, common sense if you will, is not reducible to a
   relation of name and object, because this always already (factical) situation
   is characterized by a *structure* of meanings. To Dasein's world, being amidst 
   things which also always already have their place in a meaning pattern, belongs 
   what Heidegger calls Bedeutsamkeit, significance. (BT, par. 18) Through us, 
   through being-in-the-world, also things at hand are in a world. And all talk of 
   the things themselves, also the scientific variant, can only recur to this originary 
   situation, never transcend it! It would be like (but not the same) asking in the 
   case of a centimetre, what it is apart from the metrical system. 
 

 
Where do words come from you ask? Words are arrangements of phonemes  
[sounds] which human beings string together 

  Sure, but in order to do that, words, and not phonemes, must already be 
  understood. All this previous understanding is sthing we do naturally,
  as with the understanding of time in the everyday world, looking at a watch.
  
  




in order to create a combination of  
sounds that convey a meaning. It started with basic verbal signs like ugh-ugh,  
and developed from there.

   Between ugh-ugh and a meaningful world there is only an abyss. We're not
   reducible to animals, or proto-humans. Knowledge of (pre)history has its
   source in being-in-the-world, not the other way around.

 Words have different meanings however — the word  
Faggot is an extremely offensive word in America, whereas in Britain it is  either 
a bundle of wood for a fire, or a type of fried food found in the north  of 
England. 
 
Some words do not cause problems — proper names like Rene and Jud for  
example — but the abstract nouns so beloved of Heidegger are the most tricky and  
dangerous words that anybody can use.

   Very true.

 That is why slippery old Heidegger likes  
them so much — being virtually meaningless semantically — it is well nigh  
impossible to pin them down — and so transcendentalist conversation drones on  
and on like a pilotless plane which has lost contact with ground-control.
 
Rene: 
Why is everybody telling lies about words? Like that they would be  
neurophysiological or instruments of communication. Trusting scientific  witchcraft, 
Jud? 
 
Jud: 
When people use words in philosophical conversation, they are NOT telling  
lies with words — they are using words in a way that has a DIFFERENT MEANING for 
 them as they conceived of by others. Problems begin when people come to 
believe  that the ONLY CORRECT meanings of words is the meaning which is 
meaningful for  THEM.

  When i am right that words always include things and a world, and mortal
  being-in-the-world, then a real philosophical fight is not a fight over 
  'mere' words. You analysts and positivists are trying to escape into some
  sort of untouchableness (like Anthony), but there is no escaping from 
  being-in-the world, there is only a taking over of it. Also analyzing
  essential problems away, is being-in-the-world and responding to facticity. 


  the rest later, Jud, thanks..
  rene 





 
Jud: [Previously] 
They have no 'independence' from the human who generates them, nor can  words 
'choose' a human medium through which to speak.
 
Rene: 
None of these were asserted by me. You're the only one of us two who claims  
to know what language and words are. The speaking/sounding of language, i am  
speaking of, is not sthing that i claim to know. It just becomes inevitable to 
 speak of this speaking of language, as soon as the subject that claims la
nguage,  turns out to be a lie. What THEN is language? I'm merely asking a 
necessary  question, which can only be denied as long as the subjects keep on 
believing in  themselves, which they need to. 
 
Jud: 
Perhaps not asserted by you intentionally, but in your original piece Rene  
you said:

(1) Words speak, sound, through you (per-sona). 
(2) One-self - just  the place where the lies find a place to be?
 
In both statements your suggestion is that words have the power to speak  
[rather than the speaker] and that lies are engaged in some quest to find a  
suitable mouthpiece to be used to broadcast them.   I fail to see how  It just 
becomes inevitable to speak of this 'speaking of language,' as soon as  the 
subject that claims language, turns out to be a lie. A person DOES NOT claim  
language — a person SPEAKS words, the compendium of which, if a person is  speaking 
Dutch, we call the Dutch Language, and if he is speaking English we  call the 
English Language. It is not the WORDS that lie or the LANGUAGE that  lies — 
it is the LIAR who speaks those words of the Dutch or English language  who is 
lying. When you say: "... as long as the subjects keep on believing in  
themselves," I presume you mean by the collective noun "subjects" — the  speakers of 
the lies [or the truths?] What do you mean by 'believing in  themselves' do 
you mean:
 
(1) Believing that they speak the truth?
(2) Believing in themselves as  worthwhile and decent people?
(3) Believing that they exist?
(4} By "subject" you refer to the subject of the sentence?
 
Rene: 
The jokes you tell below are also not really jokes, because what once were  
incidental cases of witch burning, is now regularly praxis under the banner of  
the lie words. Once they got a process. Now what does not please the warlord, 
is  clusterbombed. Most of the time, mechanized agriculture suffices.
 
Jud: 
I completely agree with you here Rene, but there is a form of political and  
social criticism called satire, irony, parody, pasquinade, ridicule, etc., 
which  I personally favour. In the great tradition of English satire one can 
often be  more effective as a critic of some hypocrisy or political outrage than 
one can  achieve in a measured logical but ultimately boring piece about the 
torture and  killing and ... 
Every nation has a satirical magazine — even the dour Russians with their  
Krokodil - it is a well known European method of political and social  criticism.
 
Rene: 
If Tudor is right -and i think he is- the -Witze will go on, as long as the  
mental holocaust continues. (no joke intended)
 
Jud: 
Tudor's doctrines, like every other transcendentalist creed NEEDS the  
presence and proximity of fear and death and gloom. The Bible, the Koran, the  
Talmud and every religious and transcendentalist [only God can save us now] book  
in the world feasts upon death and waxes fat upon it like some grotesque  
charnelhouse hound existing on scraps. Without suffering religion would die out  
overnight. The mental holocaust will continue as long as religion and the belief 
 in the existence of abstractions continues. It will all go on until God, 
Being,  Fatherland, Paradise, Will to Power, and all the rest of the evil  
transcendentalist claptrap is consigned to the dustbin of history where it  belongs. 
Only then will humans be peaceful and happy creatures. :-)
 
Die ros' ist ohn Warum; Sie bluhet, weil sie bluhet, Sie acht nicht ihrer  
selbst, Fragt nicht, ob man sie siehet. 
The Rose is without "why"; She blows because she bloweth. She asks no  
passer-by to heed her as he goeth.


Cheers,
 
Jud
 
Nullius in Verba

_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_ 
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm) 
JUD  EVANS - XVANS XPERIENTIALISM



--- 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 ---


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