Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:54:54 -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.


As would analytical philosophy "expanded" to meet the demands of the 
poetic speaking which obtains
in Heideggerian phenomenology.  This is an easy one Judsy.  Every 
kind of speech has a rhetoric
which is appropriate to it, a way of saying things that (you're right 
about this one) gives what you say persuasive force.  It's just that 
to certain philosophical elitists blinded by a self induced literal , 
linear certainty (relatively easy to come by), their own rhetoric 
becomes invisible.  This is the invisibility that goes with 
presumptive power.  You ask  a long standing American W.A.S.P. about 
his ethnicity, he replies that he has no ethnicity, no ethnic 
background from whence he comes.  The invisibility of whiteness, 
maleness, etc.




>>
>>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',


Oh Judsy.  Your innocence and naivete are so charmingly transparent. 
By simply looking at your
language in the above sentence (Now really look at it, please. . . 
for your old Nunc) you speak
of your philosophy as "dealing with that which exists in the world. . 
.  "  You said it:  Philosophizing (a kind of observing, however you 
see it) must necessarily DEAL WITH that which exists.  This dealing 
-WITH ( Heidegger calls this Umgang in der Welt) of necessity 
involves Dasein as a  subject-in-the-world, and so the "how" of 
subjectivity, that is, of having a world, which having, is expressed 
SUBJECTIVELY, is the most distinctive thing about you dear boy, and 
thereby merits our closest philosophical attention.


>>  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.


Unworthy of you, and therefore unworthy of comment.




>>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.
>>
>
>---


Well, in a month of Sundays, I don't really claim a whole lot more 
for philosophy, except
that it be called philosophy.  About the salt, though, I've been told 
to substantially lower my salt intake,
and I'm afraid I'm allergic to bread (wheat, gluten to be exact), so 
the world as I have it, imagination
and all, is the real world.  I don't really have much choice in the matter.

As always, your
Nunc


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