HEIDEGGER NOTES Been working on Heidegger today. And I still don’t ‘grok it’. I

HEIDEGGER NOTES

Been working on Heidegger today. And I still don’t ‘grok it’. I understand the underlying problem that he is trying to solve, but I don’t understand his solution.

If you can’t describe something as human actions, and if you can’t reduce something to analogy to experience, then I question whether you understand it, and whether it’s testable. And so far I can’t find a praxeological (neutral encyclopedic) set of definitions.

I still think it’s just another zoroastrian revival movement. An attempt to argue that our senses are enough to serve our desires. A regressive attempt to return to primitivism, so that the senses and instincts alone allow us to abandon the problem of interpreting abstractions as analogies to experience.

FROM HEIDEGGER FOR DUMMIES:

“The Daseinic mechanism is Heidegger’s juvenile attempt at a grammatical and semantic transcendentalist trick in order to improperly elevate existence or BEING to the ontological status of a predicate via the gerundial phrase being there.”

“Heidegger gambled [correctly] that the average reader, not expecting to be bamboozled, would, after a while forget the real underlying meaning of the 3rd-person continuous present fragment –*being* and gradually internalise *Being* and the gerundial *being there* as legitimate names for his human everyman’s existence. *Dasein* also means *Existence* in German) so bingo, the fact that existence is unpredicable would be forgotten by most the readers of *Being and Time,* after a chapter or two and for the purposes of his occult agenda it would be accepted into the philosophical lexicon as a fully fledged noun, which is the way he boldly treats it in his writings.

Labouring under the same misaprehension of the Russian Name Worshipping Cult which holds that that if one names something it psychologically instantiates it, he smuggled *IS* and *Being* into his nominological vocabulary in the form of the gerundial noun phrase *being there* in order to avoid the more obvious existential Cartesian-style duality that the word *Being* implies* if it is bereft of an existential modality or modification to indicate, such as: *Adolf is being silly.*etc.

Dasein (Being-There or Existence) is presented as a verbal noun – as a pseudo-entity which, as a noun, might be expected to have an existence – but it is an illusion, for it is no more than a BE word in drag – a 3rd-person conjugation or continuous *being* word in metaphysical sheep*s clothing. It must be remembered therefore that when he uses the word Dasein, he is misapplying it to substantiate or cognitively instantiate the verb being as a noun and thus when he talks of the: *Being of Dasein* he is really saying the *Being of Being.* [compare *the dancing of dancing.*]

Ask yourself… “Is it the dancing Annabelle that exists – or *dancing?* Is it the being called Annabelle that exists, or the *Being* of the being called Annabelle?”

—-

SKEPTICISM

I called Heidegger a philosophical date-rapist for this kind of sneaky stuff… But I keep open the possibility that I simply cannot conceive of world as he tries to communicate it. On the other hand, I think it’s also a possibility that Heidegger is a christian mystic doing a very artful job of creating a philosophical excuse for tyranny.

All I see from the Postmodernists and the Continentals is an attempt to recreate the church by irrational rather than arational means. Religion may be arational because it is allegorical, but at least protestantism is not irrational, in the sense that it’s false. The difference between allegory and the pretense of rationality is the difference between not only truth and falsehood, but truth and deception.