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

Re: [Sartre] Chromosomal Capers.

Expand Messages
  • catweasle
    ... From: Gary Moore To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 11:14 AM
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 19, 2000
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Gary Moore" <gottlos45@...>
      To: <heidegger@...>
      Cc: <gottlos75@...>
      Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 11:14 AM
      Subject: NECESSITY OF DEBATE II: Heidegger on Sociology and Psychology Pt 11


      Hi Gary!

      Thank you for your kind words and thank you too Mr Newton Ramos de Oliveira.

      I am enjoying all your Heidegger postings - thank you for all the hard work
      that you are putting in and for sharing it with us all. I'm sorry that my
      remarks about Heidegger and other existentialists are always negative - it's
      just that I think that the whole caboodle is utterly crazy and downright
      wrong. For a disbeliever like me the choice is:

      1. Leave the list and go and join a group more in keeping with my
      materialist appetites.
      2. Stay and continue learning in order to enlarge my knowledge - even if
      sadly the said knowledge will probably be used against transcendentalistic
      notions.

      I stay mainly because of you and your conversationalists and the vast
      repertoire of information which is refreshingly argot-free and which is a
      delight to
      read.

      However back to Heidegger. As a outside observer to this strange
      superannuated cult of Heideggerianism one quickly becomes used to the
      extremes of the weird olde worlde existentialist position - one gets inured
      to
      it in a way - just like one gets accustomed to the daily opportunings of
      an irascible beggar
      on the subway or the exponential rise urban crime. Now and again however,
      a particular felony is so horrid that it jolts you out of your
      complacency - you sit up and begin to take notice.
      Such a 'misdemeanour' appears in Heidegger's statement that:

      "There is no biological design of evolution. There is simply the ABSOLUTE
      ACCIDENT of throwness."

      Do my eyes deceive me or is Heidegger actually saying that genetical
      processes do not exist - that my brown eyes are not the result of my
      genealogical heritage?
      Have we simply been thrown into the world without the involvement of any
      parental sperm or ovum and is there no self-replicating protein molecule
      that occupies a fixed place on my chromosomal chain; a unit of heredity that
      gave me these brown eyes with which I have bequeathed my eye-colour to all
      of my eight children?

      Pray tell me who is this mysterious thrower who has propelled me through the
      air into the existence that I now enjoy? Where is Heidegger's evidence that
      our existence is an ABSOLUTE ACCIDENT? It may well be true that my father
      and mother's meeting together was an accident. Strangely enough, my mum and
      dad first met on Stanley Park bridge in Liverpool. If my dad had hired a
      rowing boat instead of standing on the bridge looking down at the lake my
      mother would have simply walked on by and I probably wouldn't be here now!
      (Did someone say: "I wish she had?) :-)
      This concatenation of coincidence can be traced back in all of our
      genealogical chronicles right back to the beginning of time, but I somehow
      don't think that this was the sort of 'accident' that the Janus-faced Jesuit
      Heidegger had in mind?

      Come to think of it - where is his evidence for all of the craziness that
      he expounds? He states that there is such a thing as *Being* without any
      evidence at all. Most people reject the concept of *Being* as a childish
      nonsense. Why not simply talk about our *LIVES* for a change for it is our
      lives that we live and *Being* is only a grammatical label - a verb that we
      use to describe the present continuous state of existence - it is not a
      thing in itself. *Being* doesn't *become* anything and never used to be
      anything. We live or we die. We exist or we do not exist - it is as
      simple as that. Dassein is a figment of Heidegger's feverish
      clerically-inspired imagination.

      To confront a tree or a person and to disregard it's history is ridiculous
      and valueless. To disregard information is to live in a world of delusion.
      To turn a blind eye to reality is self defeating and ultimately destructive.
      Heideggerianism is irrational and is therefore ultimately evil.

      As usual there is purely goodwill and nothing personal in my criticisms.

      Best wishes,

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