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

Re: Building a Better No Thing

Expand Messages
  • fictiveparrot
    ... Oh, so now I am wrong too? You are a very tall genius I suppose. Don t hit your head on the beam above the door. My original objection, which perhaps I
    Message 1 of 77 , Mar 22, 2013
      > I hoped to answer your very objection in my response to Mary.
      > But ... the ontological question of Nothing is not about loss
      > of anything. You are following the same 'act of declension'
      > that seems always to attend the thinking of the concept

      Oh, so now I am wrong too? You are a very tall genius I suppose. Don't hit your head on the beam above the door.

      My original objection, which perhaps I didn't make clear, is that you called out someone for being wrong, and my point of contention with the contention is that it assumes you think you are right... in which case you suggest you know something, which I find contentious.

      You do catch me on a point I should have stated more clearly... I said "...but that means loss of sensation, of vision and smell and hearing and taste -- everything you are accustomed to" and indeed 'nothing' is not a loss. It was too casual an articulation. What I meant to say was that to understand 'nothing' you reach into an unfamiliar environment which your familiar sensibilities will not really aide you in exploring. Did you really disagree with that? It is curious that you jump to the conclusion that I am an idiot first and that I need your teaching for some smarts to be thrown my way...

      > Being/Nothing are urgent because 'they' are, as it were...

      No, they are not "urgent" in any use of the word I have ever encountered... There are far better words to use there. In fact, I think a lot of your word choice makes your dialog difficult to interpret... and to me it seems like an academic cloud. Like what is with this sentence:

      "It is fundamentally the most primary as well as the always-last question that seems always to transcend its act of declension, its becoming the case of this or that analytic, its 'falling' as this or that understanding (as in the German Der Fall, the case of)."

      Was that a Burroughs cut up? I can take that apart for you thousands of different ways, but the redundancy of 'fundamentally' and 'primary' and 'mostness' of that primary are like big fat scoops of ice cream without a cone -- or a spoon. Isn't it to the point to just say: "It is a fundamental question." And yet that leaves us without definition of 'it' which is apparently important considering the frequency of 'its' appearance. I doubt the claim that 'it' is always last asked is at all valid because no one would have asked 'it' yet -- because we are, like the dessert, waiting for the last, which hasn't happened yet. You academic things up like a cook with the salt shaker over the soup way too long. Use less, it'll taste better -- assuming there is something else in the pot. I am not sure, considering that sentence, that there is anything else in the pot...

      When I said:

      > Sorry to extract, but you are clearly defined about "nothing"?

      I meant to suggest, and stopped short, that I had my doubts about you being so well versed in 'nothing' that you could unmistakably call someone wrong... 'Wrong' being the one time where you seem to use a word that doesn't circumlocute what you are trying to say. It is an academician that reaches out to call others wrong... perhaps without totally digesting another perspective or perhaps making an assumption that the other party is quite stupid and inferior. Logistically, what you interpret about what someone else thinks is only your interpretation of that thinking, and it is a little pretentious to assume that your capacity to understand is so great that it surpasses the ability of the medium. I guess my issue is really that speaking about what someone else knows or thought or thought he knows or thinks he thought he thought... is fairly irrational and pointless. That is, YOU are the one reading and interpreting, and the thoughts are fundamentally the most primarily YOURS -- there is no cosmic link to the intellectual capacity of the writer...and if there were we'd all have it. Perhaps, as you have shown not to be able to do with me (as per the above examples), you don't have too clear a picture on other written collections either. Why tell me what someone else is saying... I might read it totally differently. It doesn't make anyone correct.

      What does your response say that actually furthers the discussion? Or is it merely that you want to wield your great sword of declaration and render others wrong?

      Bonking Noggin
    • wsindarius
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8751648669/in/photostream http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8752770770/in/photostream ... From: hermit crab
      Message 77 of 77 , May 18, 2013


        -----Original Message-----
        From: hermit crab <hermitcrab65@...>
        To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sat, May 18, 2013 7:23 pm
        Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Building a better nothing (Wil sees Krauss)

        Very interesting, Wil. I kept wondering how it went. Good thing he didn't
        start spouting off about philosophers, eh? :-D Thank you for the update.
        The first link worked but the second one did not.


        On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:05 PM, <eupraxis@...> wrote:

        > **
        > Hello H,
        > Yes, sorry for my silence. The Krauss talk was nearly identical to others
        > of recent vintage that you can see on YouTube, but he did lay off
        > philosophy a bit and concentrate his sarcasm on Republicans, the South (I
        > am in New Orleans) and string theorists. I got some nice photos of him and
        > said hello (I was part of an invited group, NOSHA). He was pleasant, in
        > that almost-smug way.
        > http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8669528519/in/photostream
        > https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152796725025424&set=a.10152392005530424.946669.654825423&type=3&theater
        > Wil
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: existlist <hermitcrab65@...>
        > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Sat, May 18, 2013 9:04 am
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: Building a better nothing (Wil sees Krauss)
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
        > > Response: As I said, I like Krauss' book and I like him, especially his
        > talks. In fact, he will be here in a few weeks to discuss this very book,
        > and I will be present. My problem with his statements has nothing to do
        > with his manner of doing science; it has to do with his unfortunate
        > dismissal of philosophy and his misunderstanding of ontology.
        > ===Wil,
        > I have been waiting patiently to hear how this meetup went.
        > Please report. :)
        > h.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.