From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:14:07 EST
Subject: Re: all or nothing at all, part X


 
 
In a message dated 04/11/2004 12:17:38 GMT Standard Time,  
R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl writes:



-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van:  owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
[mailto:owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]Namens
GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Verzonden:  donderdag 4 november 2004 3:12
Aan:  heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Onderwerp: Re: all or nothing at all,  part X




In a message dated 04/11/2004 01:20:59 GMT Standard  Time, janstr-AT-chan.nl  
writes:

Hi Jud,

in your  conversation with Michael you wrote  i.a.:

>..... because  *something* ALWAYS existed and always  will.
>..... the fact that X  exists as X.

>.....  Objects/forcefields simply exist in the  differing ways that they  
exist.
>..... an object exists in the  way that exists
>.....  correspond to the way that an object exists  in the way it  exists.

>..... An entity [an entitic being]  exists in the way that  it exists,

I find your descriptions and  formulations here have a rather  religious
and transcendentalists  connotation. They strongly remind me of  the
name of the God of Moses:  YHWH, "I exist in the way I exist", "I  am
that I am", "I shall be who  I shall be" [Exodus  3:14].

yours,
Jan

Jud:
Well  spotted Jan - there is a remarkable similarity.  That is why  the  
biblical phrase carries so much impact. Because like my formula it   is 
perfect 
tautology - given that one accepts that objects   exist.  It too is a perfect 
statement that is necessarily  true,  given that one accepts that God existsFour things militate against the  biblical  version though.


Rene:
Indeed very well seen. The harder Jud tries to losen himself from  ontological
commitment, the harder he is bound to it. And the harder he is  bound to it,
the more aggressive he becomes.
 
 
Jud:
But I am not bound to any metaphysical or transcendentalist ontological  
commitment Rene, and the reasons for that freedom from it are given below,  
reasons which you have ignored [ not faced up to and addressed.]   The two 
tautologies are formulaically similar, but the grounds are entirely  different.  The 
object-based grounding of my ontological formula is based  upon acknowledged 
concrete entities that anybody can access through our five  senses, in that we 
can: touch, see, hear and taste
taste worldly objects, whereas on the other hand the biblical tautology  is 
based on FAITH alone, and *faith* has been described by Voltaire  as being: *An 
effort on behalf of the will to believe in something for which  their is no 
evidence - for if there WAS evidence - there would be no need for  faith.*.
So whilst the two tautologies appear to be structurally synonymous,  
foundationally they are completly different.
 
Anyway there is still a raging controversy amongst Hebraists/Aramaicists  
regarding the actual translation of *God's words to Moses on the mount.
This snippet from the New Yorker is only one of many on the  subject:
 
*The ferocity of this tribal God measures the ferocity of tribal  existence. 
In Exodus 3:14, when Moses asks God his name, the answer in Hebrew,  ’Ehyeh-’
Asher-’Ehyeh, has been commonly rendered  i am that i am but could be, Alter 
reports,  simply i am, i am. An impression grew upon me, as  I made my way 
through these obdurate old texts, that to the ancient Hebrews  God was simply a 
word for what was: a universe often beautiful and gracious  but also implacable 
and unfathomable.* _http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/?041101crbo_books_ 
(http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/?041101crbo_books) 

Rene:
  But that is a very interesting feature of the man('s  words). 
The more so, because according to Heidegger the  tautological character 
of language, and the character of  'sameness' itself, is what is to be
accustomed to.
 
Jud:
*Sameness* is just an abstraction. * Whilst things may be similar,  nothing 
in the cosmos can be exactly 
the same as another object, otherwise it WOULD BE that  object. (Another 
Heideggerian boob.)
 
Anyway, I have demonstrated above that the two  tautologies are not  the 
*same* or even *similar* foundationally, 
because one is based upon actual tangible entitic beings - and the other  is 
based upon a  faith in something for which no evidence obtains.
 
Rene:
Either, though, everything is the same indifferently,
or this  indifference is ITSELF spotted as the last result of a thinking
of Being as  the koinon, the common of all that is. That thinking is called
metaphysics  or ontology, to which the Exodus passage cited above, has been
of special  importance, stimulus. So important, that today's situation is
MARKED by the  completion of that way of thinking, a completion that is left
out, and by  being left out, only prints itself harder on us.
 
Jud:
It would appear following from all the controversy amongst biblical  
scholars, that not only is *Being* inauthentic
because of the flawed instantiational process of *Object Givenness,*  but the 
word of *God* is also inauthentic
as a result of incorrect  translation.

Rene:
 Hoelderlin speaks of the abyss that marks everything. False tones,  lying
cannot escape out of the abyss of nihilism. They reverberate  and glare
between its icecold walls, which remind Hoelderlin of the  shining and 
farreaching sounding bites, that no longer shine  and sound.
 
Jud:
Nihilism is the delusion that things (or everything, including the self)  do 
not exist; a sense that everything is unreal.
This is just about as far as one can get away from materialistic  nominalism. 
So it's *back to the drawing board* for you I'm afraid  Rene.

Cheers,
 
Jud.

(a) Everyone agrees that objects exist.
(b) A decreasing  amount of people in Europe - though an increasing  amount 
of 
people  in USA believe that God exists.
(c) There is no *I am* in Aramaic.
(d)  The objects to which I refer are actual objects - the spectacle  case in 
 
my hand - the mouse in yours.
*God* has no nominatum - the word *God*  points to an idea in the human  
mind, 
rather than to a hard,  knock-on-the-wall object.
Like *Being,* *God* is an instantiation of  *object giveness* without an  
object to negotiate the givenness. God  is an ontological bride left at  the 
ontological altar without a  human father to give her away.
In that way there is nothing *religious* or  *transcendental about a  steel 
nail existing in the way that it  exists - I could show it to you - drive  it 
into Bushes skull with  the help of Heidegger's ready-to-hand -hammer - but  
I 
couldn't put  my hand up God's trouser-leg and twang the elastic in his   
underpants.






Regards,

Jud

Personal Website:
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_ 
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm) 
E-mail Discussion  List:
nominalism-AT-yahoogroups.com


--- 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 ---