From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Philosophical Influence
Date: 16 Aug 92 08:32:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Aug16.043209.14785
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Aug16.045554.17769@a.cs.okstate.edu>
onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:

>From article <1992Aug14.124501.14732@husc3.harvard.edu>, by
>zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny):

COO: 
>>>Oui, Soit.  

MZ:
>>So why are you still arguing?

COO:
> I wasn't aware that we had begun.  I'm still playing the
>petulent-child game with you of which you are quite a master and
>I a student..'

If we haven't begun arguing, we are unlikely to start now.  Incidentally,
the difference between a petulant child and a crotchety old man is that the
latter never stoops to spelling flames.

COO:
>Despite the fact that your discussion seems to lend itself to
>the typical petulent-child stuff we expect from you, I find that
>you seem at least quasi interested in a discussion on Heidegger.

You and yours are sadly mistaken.

COO:
>Now, you have claimed him to be a sophist; an example of those
>who try to deflate philosophy; a kitchen philosopher(which either
>means you never got past Heidegger's discussion on Idle Talk or
>you fail to recognize his claim that the rest of philosophy is
>contrived).  

Please remind me not to use any classical allusions next time I speak to
you.  On second thought, I see little to choose between Gorgias the Mad and
Heraclites the Dark.  Maybe you'll get this one...

COO:
>	     These are absolutely uninteresting and unfruitful
>claims against Heidegger, despite your attempt to redirect your
>personal fruitlessness against myself.

On the contrary, your personal merits were never in question.  Try again.

COO:
>				        Now, I will ask you a
>simple question and hope that you will answer it:  In what way
>do you find Heidegger to be any of these things?  Do you not
>understand the methodology that he, among others like himself
>such as Ortega Y Gassett and Kierkegaard, employ?  Or is it that
>you find that that sort of methodology is an unfruitful one?  If so,
>in the latter, how?  I can not respond to your claim because I can not
>beigin to understand in what fashion you arrive at such a conclusion.

Well then, try reading my article until you get its point.  I feel that I
have been quite explicit in stating my grievance; however it is evident
that you didn't get it, and I don't feel like belaboring the obvious.

COO:
>Further you claim that Heidegger is philosophically devoid of methodology
>and at the same time claim him to be a Nazi--now if I have my Derrida
>right, these two are mutually exclusive.

Please do not put words in my mouth.  Pace Gorgias, even kitchen debate has
its methodology.  Funny, I thought you knew your classics a little better
than that...

COO:
>					  So you, alas, are the
>one without justification.  Further, I find Heidegger's withdrawl
>from the Nazi party a sufficient message as to his feelings about it
>despite unspoken words.  Further, I find myself fascinated by his
>ideas and rather bored by his political life.

This hackneyed dichotomy may well apply to a master chef; however I find a
philosopher's ideas to be inseparable from his political life.  And on the
subject of the latter, the final word on Heidegger has been written.  Too
bad for his ideas.

COO:
>Last, the reason why I find representational theories to be "crap"(and
>I leave it to you to determine the precise meaning of this--am
>I really refering to feces?) is that it attempts to categorize and
>as such remains bound to the ontical.  

Only if you believe that sign must remain bound to the thing signified.
Having said that, I must confess to holding that reality is utterly
exhausted by the ontical.

COO:
>					Further, I can not accept
>your thesis that the first task of philosophy is to find the "structure of
>reality" as I believe the first task of philosophy is 'to find.' 

Feel free to impersonate the man of La Mancha all you want; as for me, I
prefer `to find' in its transitive capacity.

COO:
>Second, it comes as no surprise that you find the
>second task of philosophy as that which concerns meaning--this point
>and your first task go hand in hand.  It turns out, Mikhail, that the
>two tasks you have set forth, as divided in two, can not
>be seperated.  Confused?  Always look to the function of the sign,
>the function of the sign is to structure.  Since it was the structure
>you were looking for, and since the sign is to structure, your first
>task should have stated "find meaning."  And finding meaning, Mikhail,
>is the purpose of philosophy--See...Heidegger isn't so bad, now is he?

You seem to be confusing the function of the sign with its structure.  The
function of the sign is to denote; otherwise, I assure you, we wouldn't be
having this conversation.

COO:
>Your next question is probably "so what's wrong?"  The answer is:
>nothing, so long as you don't pressupose reality in the finding of meaning
>and here I say "reality" not "being" because being is always presupposed..

I don't presuppose much of anything these days, -- doctor's orders.
Instead, I deduce things, as far as I can, and no further.  Reality of
meaning is one of them; being, though decidedly not a big deal, is another.
Have I mentioned Parmenides yet?

>>>>>-- 
>>>>mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
>>>>who will be in Paris two weeks from today!

COO:
>>>Ah, now he is trying to make me jealous.  First he argues with me,
>>>then he pulls this one--really below the belt Mikhail.  I was
>>>supposed to be in Bretagne for this month...

MZ:
>>Tough titty, mon vieux, but it's every man for himself.

COO:
>Yeah??  Well, Je m'en fiche.   And just think, I would not be here
>talking with you...

No disrespect, but I think I'll live, and so will you.

MZ:
>>>>"Un de mes plus grands plaisirs est de jurer Dieu quand je bande."

COO:
>Ca, c'est vrai et tres evidement.

You still have to do something about that grammar...

>>cordially, 

COO:
>	      (I never understood this part..)

A little Latin might help.

>>mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu

>BCnya,

And I never fail to get mildly annoyed by this one.

>  Charles O. Onstott, III
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Charles O. Onstott, III  Account at Oklahoma State University for summer.
>Graduate Student in Religious Studies           onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu
>University of Chicago
>------------------------------------------------------------------------

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
(only nine more days to go)
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta