From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:21:40 EDT
Subject: Re: Expansion and Heideggerian Futilitarianism


 
 


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.
 
Jud:
Strange that you mention repetition Nunc. I mean speaking  stylistically
it is probably not a good idea, though rhetorically it can be useful as  long 
as 
one rings some neccessary changes. However tautologically speaking I have  
never 
understood why tautology gets such a bad press - for it has always  seemed to 
me 
that a statement that  a logical statement that is  necessarily true is worth 
repeating
 
Allen:
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
 
Jud:
The trouble is that I don't care to do the kind of 'philosophy' that you do  
Allen,
mainly because I don't consider it to be real philosophy at all.
To me it is a jolly ragbag of poetry and flights of the imagination, and  the 
only 
reason that I am here is that I love poetry and your wonderful  flights of 
the imagination.
 I can join in quite happily on that level as long as somebody doesn't  go 
and spoil it 
 and suggest that it is actual philosophy.   ;-)

Allen:
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.  
 
Jud:
Why is speech a 'miracle? There is nothing 'miraculous' about it.
Such things may have been considered  amazing or wonderful occurrences  
before science explained its workings
but although it may be wonderful in the sense that it is part of our  
humanity and to be human is a wonderfully enjoyable experience, it is certainly  not  
a marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of God -  because [like 
Being] God is just a product of the human imagination in the same  way that 
transcendentalist 'philosophers' imagines Heideggerianisn [inter alia]  is version 
of  'philosophy.'
 
Allen:
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.
 
Jud:
I agree with the last bit.

Nunc:
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.
 
Jud:
I waited for you untl 4.15pm and even ordered a bottle of  Bordeaux, a 1787 
Chateau Lafite - but cancelled it when you failed to  show.
The wine waiter [whose breath smelled of absinth] claimed the bottle had 
belonged to Thomas Jefferson, the third president  of the United States, and one 
of the most revered of its founding fathers. A  philosopher, scientist and 
statesmen, the aristocratic Jefferson was also an  avid oenophile. When he was 
ambassador to France he spent much of his time  visiting the vineyards of 
Bordeaux and Burgundy, buying wine for his own  collection and on behalf of his 
friends back home. He is also associated with  two other bottles of very pricey 
wine, a 1775 Sherry ($43,500) and the most  expensive white wine ever sold, a 
1787 Chateau d'Yquem ($56,588). 
I ignored those, though had you showed up I would  have doubtless pushed the 
boat out once I had got the taste.
How and why your university restaurant has such an  expensive wine cellar I 
have no idea?  Is it a reflection of the salary  they pay you nowadays in 
academia?

Of  course none of these wines are actually drinkable now;  ;-(  it  is 
unusual for even the best Bordeaux to last more than 50 years, and 200 years  is 
beyond any wine's limit. 

Your affectionate nephew,
 
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 ---