Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:19:31 -0500
From: allen scult <allen.scult-AT-drake.edu>
Subject: Re: Expansion and Heideggerian Futilitarianism


>
>
>
>
>Wherein and where-by are all subjectivities given as what  they are?
>
>Phrased this way the "wherein" and "where-by" more obviously  come to be
>located in language, or speech, to be more exact.  When one  speaks, the
>central
>ambiguity of subjectivity, of being a subject, is  introduced in and
>through one's way of saying what one says. One cannot  speak without saying
>what one has to say this way or that.
>Once spoken,  what is usually considered the subjectivity of the
>subject, is now   explicit, is given material, tangible form.  The cat
>is out of the bag!
>
>Jud:
>Dear Nunc - The way I see it there is nothing remotely 'ambiguous' about 
>speaking.  The act of
>talking makes it quite plain that one is the speaker.  One  either speaks -
>or one remains silent.
>If one speaks one HAS to choose some words to say what one is  attempting to
>communicate.
>There is nothing mystical or ambiguous about this. It is a physiological 
>fact. We open our mouths,
>wag the tongue and our ideas spew out in the form of spoken words.
>If one is speaking or crossing the road and one finishes speaking or  reaches
>the other side,
>the words have been spoken, or the other side of the road has been reached  -
>it is as simple as that.
>The act has been accomplished. The judgements based on our  individual 
>personal impressions and 'subjective' feelings
>will have been only partly and vaguely communicated in the act of social 
>relation - but a least an act of
>communication will have been executed, albeit inadequately.
>Subjectivity - objectivity - like any other abstraction can NEVER be given 
>material, tangible form.
>If you are capable of creating a tangible material form out of  abstractional
>  'subjectivity' you are wasting your time
>as a university lecturer - you could be on TV earning millions, for  only
>Jesus Christ is said to have pulled
>off those sort of parapsychological tricks.


Dear Judsy,

In order to continue to try to be of some help in your education even 
though we are so
far apart, I have Highlighted some key repetitions in what you said 
above.  Aside from
the resemblance to the Big W's sense of what constitutes reasoning: 
" The reason I say
there was contact between Sadaam and Al Qaida is because there was 
contact between Sadaam
and Al Qaida," this way of speaking keeps you stuck.

You see Judsy, if you want to really think about these matters, 
philosophize, so to speak, you need to stop simply repeating yourself 
with what seem like an endless array of variations of the same point 
( a misuse of obviously remarkable powers of imagination) made 
essentially at the same level of language-thought.  You need
to venture more deeply and try to look into what's being said, 
including what you're saying,
in order to investigate the how of it's saying, of thoughts coming to 
language.  It's a deliciously
complex process, which is eminently accessable to just the sort of 
phenomenological investigation
I've been trying to teach you all these years.

Furthermore, the act of thinking itself, let alone the act of turning 
thought to speech (all of which,
by the way, might very well be thought of as constituting the same 
act,  as is the very thought of it I just spoke, and so on. . .) are 
miracles of the first order, worthy of all kinds of mystical, even 
divine
attribution.  The distinctive thing about what I do as a university 
lecturer in philosophy is attempt to understand the process from 
inside itself, without committing the sort of solipsistic, 
abstractionist withdrawl , which in your youthful ignorance, you're 
always accusing me of.  The "work" of the million
dollar comics, wits and Jesus imitators you mention  is weak and 
uninteresting by comparison--literally  a waste of time, despite the 
big bucks.

There were some other repetitions in  your note which might be worthy 
of comment, but I must run to a luncheon engagement.  How about we 
meet together for tea about three.

Your Loving Nunc




>
>
>Allen:
>Enter "rhetoric." Through the rhetorical possibilities available to 
>say  one's saying this way or that  one attempts to hide one's 
>"subjectivity" by saying one's saying as
>if it were not just one's  way  of saying, but the saying of what is. 
>
>Jud:
>One doesn't 'say ones saying'  - one speaks certain chosen words from  one's
>vocabulary in order to convey meaning,
>or in the way Heidegger practiced: one speaks certain chosen words from 
>one's vocabulary in order to convey
>fancy-sounding meaninglessness. Rhetoric is a verbal weapon used by people 
>using language effectively to please or persuade,
>in the manner of Heidegger in his high flown style; mistranslations of the 
>Greek, vomit-inducing neologisms, excessive use of verbal ornamentation and 
>confused and empty style. Restricted to plain speaking and a straight forward 
>unambiguous format,  Heideggerianism would fizzle-out overnight as utterly 
>laughable and comedic on par with the Rowan and Martin Laugh-in.
>
>Allen:
>This move requires conventions of proof,  method. . .SCIENCE. 
>Philosophy, Heidegger claims, is unique amongst the
>human practices  "invented" to  deal with this problem of subjectivity, in
>that it proves  nothing,
>and is therefore useless to any endeavor outside of itself because  it says
>what it says with the full
>recognition that its saying is no   more than a basic movement of factical
>life.
>
>Jud:
>Here for once he speaks the truth - that is if he speaks of 
>transcendentalist 'philosophy.' [cough!]
>Analytical philosophy [or better still nominalistic philosophy]  is  another
>matter, for it deals with that which exists in the world  and not  with the
>human 'subjective' subject and his 'problems' of  'angst' and fear 
>of the world,
>and artificially constructed 'Daseins' or 'Being  in the world', and does not
>wail that "only a God can save us now" and other  weakling rubbish suitable
>for rusk-nibblers, but deals with practical problems  concerning how the world
>really is, and what exists and what doesn't. The  subjectivity and the moaning
>  bit the analyticals leave  to the subjectivists and Heideggerian [only a God
>can save us now]  Futilitarians.
>
>Allen:
>But as the basic movement of factical life that it is, the saying
>of  philosophy insists on continually throwing its own subjectivity into
>question,  by way of
>moving towards its essential interchangeability with all other 
>subjectivities.  This questioning guarentees
>incompleteness because of  the impossibility of reaching this
>interchangability in and through
>one's  saying, even though it( the interchangeability of
>subjectivities) is  "essential" to  the thinking/existential analytic of 
>Dasein.
>
>Jud:
>As long as it is plain that this philosophical doctrine is the Heideggerian 
>one all that you say is true.
>Heideggerianism IS interchangeable with most other mental pathologies and 
>personality problems such as
>feeling of indefinable anguish, death, insecurity, fear of the outside 
>world, helplessness [Only a God can save us], etc.  In fact strictly from a 
>psychological point of view it is probably true to characterise 
>Heideggerianism  as
>a mild form of mental disturbance and neurophysical  imbalance.
>
>Allen:
>I think I managed to keep the ambiguity essential, but whether I did or not 
>...
>
>Jud:
>Like all competent Heideggerians your skilful handling of  ambiguity, rather
>than spoiling everything with plain unambiguity of  speech is a credit to you.
>You would have made a wonderful politician, lawyer or  psychologist Nunc.
>When I first came to Heideggerianism I was contemptuous  of the equivocation,
>evasion and doublespeak, but now I enjoy it - it's like  playing word-games or
>philosophical charades.  One grows to like it - as it  is a form of conceptual
>crosswords or semantic scrabble. The bottom  line.  There is NO WAY that
>Heideggerianism could be called 'Philosophy,' -  not in a month of 
>sundays - but
>with further familiarity it can become amusing  and enjoyable as a way of
>talking about the world of the imagination [rather  than the REAL 
>world] as one
>takes it all with a fistful of salt that is... and  everyone has to 
>earn a crust.
>
>
>Best wishes,
>
>
>
>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 ---


--- 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 ---