Subject: Re: Nietzsche is Bunk
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 01:01:02 +0100


'To The Tumbrels with Being!'

Predicationary indicative utilization of the verb "to be" and the connected
verbal noun 'Being,' does not reflect the factual changing circumstances in
the cosmos as we encounter them in our experience of living. The deliberate
elimination of the 'being' word automatically triggers a philosophical
search for meaning, yet at the same time disposes of many of the linguistic
problems associated with an understanding of Nietzsche's ideas.
Ironically, the very word chosen by the philosopher as one of his  petards,
emerges
as one of the greatest stumbling block to an explication of his methodology
and
intention, and hoists him away from the comprehension of  his scholars.
Outwardly to an entire extent the 'real world' changes so slowly that we may
not observe the changes directly, as in the case of a gravestone, which has
a
certain outward aspect of solidity and permanence.  On other occasions
transformations occur so quickly that we can watch the changes in action as
in the case of the clouds in the sky or the water as it passes under a
bridge.
Each individual, as well as every 'thing,' experiences such alterations. The
human face changes with every second as the forces of gravity take their
toll, (I'm happy about this - for we have a Beauty Therapy business,) the
neuronal configuration beneath the pate bestirs in constant change -
synapsal expirations and reconnections continue apace - the mind of five
minutes ago is not the mind of the moment. The will o' the wisp 'Being' of
the present instant is the one that is decisive - not the 'Being' of a few
frames gone by.   The English verb "to be" conducts with it antiquated
delusional affiliations and entailments of enduringness and stable actuality
that we do not find in the real world.
Heidegger's version of  'Being' proves not the static verbal content word we
imagine but
a multiplicity of unprintable snapshots of consecutive 'Beings' exposed and
rearranged by the gyrating flickering magic lantern of changing reality.
What is life? What is existence? Is it cold? What is my name? Who are you?
Questions like that, because of problems relating to the meaning and changes
of meaning in structure lead to confusion. They tend to lead to discourse in
which the likelihood of useful information generation or exchange declines
precipitously. It would be more fruitful and generative of data to ask:
'what qualifies life uniquely? Has the temperature dropped?  By what name
are you called?'
Alas, it presents an almost an impossible task to adhere to the elimination
of that little word 'is' although I have managed it this essay, (except
where I have used it deliberately for exemplar purposes,) but if the effort
proves successful, a vigorous clarity emerges in the textual content. The
complete banishment of the verb to be presents a mammoth task as any trial
will soon show - the dreaded 'be' seems too steadfastly embedded in the deep
generative linguistic structures of the brain.  Personally I think that an
attempt to circumlocute and find alternatives to the 'being' word would
prove fruitful and provide aid to students and supporters of Nietzschianism
for a deeper more enriched understanding of his meanings and conclusions
about the nature of time and man's place in it.

Catweasel.





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