Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Speaking Into One Lautsprecher.

Expand Messages
  • gevans613@aol.com
    On the subject of the philosophy of the mind, below is a good example of an intellectual getting stuck in a loop , as in his thought processes getting stuck
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 10, 2001
    • 0 Attachment

      On the subject of the philosophy of the mind, below is
      a good example of an intellectual "getting stuck in a
      loop", as in his thought processes getting stuck ON
      the
      brain, rather than being OF the brain. I ask you, has
      this person lost his mind? Or has he simply left it
      behind somewhere, like maybe some local tavern, where,
      free to relax and suss out its own nausea, it may some
      day fade away, permanently, into oblivion?

      Regards,

      L.V.

      Jud

      Dear LV,

      Thank you for the thoughtful and errudite review of my piece. For you information you are dealing with linguistic-philosophy, not  philosophy of mind - obviously you can't tell one from the other?  The Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy will put you on the right road.  Ask you teacher if they have it in the school library.  If you like it,  it might be a good idea to tell your parents how much you  enjoyed it -  they make take the hint and buy it for you as a Christmas present?   After you've read a bit of philosophy you may care to have a go at addressing some of the points that were raised in my essay?  I promise that  I won't may fun of you.  In the meantime I'll  just pop over to the Sartre archive and see if I can find anything that you have written in the past - you don't mind do you?  It's only so that I can  have an opportunity  to gauge the quality of the stuff that you've posted in the past - have a little fun with it - you know the sort of thing?

      Best wishes,

      Jud.

      Below is another little piece that I have written specially for you   - think of it as a textual bouquet - the sort of thing you take into hospital to cheer someone up when they have '"problems up there"  - you know - the buzzing -  the voices you hear -  your preoccupation with self abuse?

      Best wishes,

      Jud.

      PS.  You could always try wearing gloves? ;-)



      To some translators Gorgias, is apparently represented as saying that
      nothing exists, or if it does exist it cannot be known, or if it exists and
      is knowable it cannot be communicated to another, and they often accuse him
      of denying all reality and all knowledge.  Others seem to think that he
      wasn't denying existence at all, and that what he meant was that we cannot
      speak of 'Being.'

      Looking at the introductory sentence above with the words: 'Gorgias, is
      apparently represented as saying that nothing exists,' could be interpreted
      as meaning that he was ASSERTING that nothing exists.  Who knows?  It's
      anybody's guess, and one thing I've learnt is that in the question of
      translation from the Greek of any concepts concerning being or existence, it
      is open season, with one translator insisting that 'is' or 'being' means
      'this,' and another hermeneuticist protesting that it means 'that  - while
      yet a third avers hotly that it means 'the other.'  Hence the constant
      bickering concerning what Aristotle meant when he said:  'There is a science
      that studies 'being as being'.  It is noticeable that he deliberately
      chooses to employ the present participle 'to on' which [unusually] most
      scholars agree means: 'the existing being,' and to me it seems pretty
      obvious that he must have been referring to the science of studying the
      universal elements that constitute the make-up of entities, for otherwise he
      would not have used the appellation 'science,' for if he had meant his
      statement to mean the metaphysical study of 'Being' as it is conceived of by
      the transcendentalists of today, he would not have ennobled the activity
      with the name of 'science.'  But mine is purely a personal opinion -
      cavalier to some maybe, but extremely logical to others. The word 'science'
      may well have included the wilder shores of speculation in those days - who
      knows?

      If Gorgias DID mean that we cannot speak of 'Being.' As Umberto Ecco seems
      to believe, then I entirely agree with him. This maybe the reason why Allen
      says that I remind him of Gorgias? Certainly 'being' is merely a mechanism
      which makes it possible for us to speak of the existential modalities of
      entities, [whether they be sententially real or reificantal] of the subjects
      we describe in our daily discourse, and as 'being' itself has no state or
      modality of its own it cannot be spoken of as Gorgias points out, although
      nowadays we can describe the functions of 'is' and 'being' etc employing a
      linguistic metalanguage that was not available to Gorgias at the time.

      Being itself does not exist either as a gerundial reificatory metonym for
      our serial experience of life, or as a blanket verbial composite to cover
      the sense of that serial experience that we call 'our lives,' or indeed as
      an all-encompassing term to describe cosmic-presence - rather than
      cosmic-absence, but is a word used to introduce, attribute, indicate and
      process a description of what is HAPPENING to an entity.
      'The words 'is' and 'being' are 'usherette-words' bequeathing existential
      modality upon the entities with which they are associated, and have no
      modality in themselves, neither do they possess a state of their own that
      can be 'handed over' to some illegitimate 'being-there' construction in
      order to avoid an existentialist three-legged ontological race.

      One cannot be in a state of 'BEING,' but only in a state of 'Being
      Something' - being sad or being the President of the United States of
      America, or even more sinisterly 'being there.'
      Pascal hit the nail on the head when he said in 1665:
      'One cannot begin to define being without falling victim to this absurdity,
      one cannot define a word without beginning with the term 'is' be it
      expressly stated or merely understood. To define being therefore, you have
      to say 'is'  - thus using the term to be defined in the definition.'

      Aristotle reports that there is a science that studies 'being as being,' but
      is careful to use the present participle: 'to on' that is: 'the existing
      being.'
      Heidegger although having only a tenuous grasp of the semantic significance
      of the workings of the BE the 'IS' and the 'BEING' words, was at least
      astute enough to realise that unless he could choreograph a route around the
      road block of the continuous present, as signified by the verb 'being', with
      the continuous ontological double-vision that this would automatically drag
      in its wake, was forced to create a term that would conceal this semantic
      trickery.  His choice of words was predictable and almost inevitable: 'being
      there' [das sein.]
      Being there provided him with exactly the critically important mechanism he
      required, for he cheekily co-opted the very function of the continuous
      present function of the verb, and instaurated it in combination with a
      locative predicational 'there,' which provided him with the 'ready-made'
      existential modalic state which, under the guise of 'das sein,'  meant that
      his narrator could now proceed to rhapsodise in a state of being one person
      and not some double-headed ontological monstrosity speaking into one
      Lautsprecher.
      .
      Whether it is 'being there' or 'being here,' it allows the unnamed everyman
      to don a second hug-me-tight of existence, and stooping enter into the
      mysterious world of Tolkienesque fantasy which Heidegger inhabits - a world
      of lexical jocosity where initiates construct their own lexicon of levity to
      suit the purpose of their transient and ephemeral world - a world of
      fluttering multicoloured 'beingnesses' and sudden unexpected nymphetic
      'presencings' in the bright clearings, where Delphic aesthetes drink mead
      from 'ready-to-hand' goblets, and  lie bone-white on a carpet of aureate 'is
      leaves' under the moon reading Hölderlin from dog-eared paperbacks.
      Words effervesce and foam, then fizzing into fantastic phrasings flutter
      free from the folios of grammar books like chattering migrating butterflies
      as they form new bright kaleidoscopic babble-patterns in the dappled
      sunlight of the hidden grove, far from the gimlet eyes of the stewards of
      the King's English. Elfish conjugations switch partners and dance with
      stunted gerundial Hobbits from the darker shores of Lake Deception, as they
      cavort in a mad barn-dance of syntactical stomping and etymological
      delirium.  In the centre near a tethered white stallion, garlanded with
      silver is-leaves brocaded into an ontic crown of luxuriant being-fronds and
      ousia grass, sits MH himself, empty-handed upon his return from ' Die Suche
      nach Sein ' - the presiding garlanded Lord der Wesenheiten in a world of
      metaphysical make-believe and metonymical medieval merriment.

      Jud Evans.


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.