Re: Transcendental Tinnitus

+ From: "Michael Pennamacoor" <pennamacoor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+ Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 12:29:11 +0000

> THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3098089752_206129_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

The Pennama-Core of being:

Jud wrote this recently -->

> The Core of Being - The Andreus Priniciple.
>
> The AITist model that is emerging is of the BE mechanism processing unit =
as
> the main onto-tempo-numeric cognitive processor which lies at the very co=
re
> of our language facility and thus of our human consciousness. It is from
> this primal cognitive processing system that the regulative messages are
> sent to the receptors that operate the conjugational verbial circuits and
> the declensional nominal systems, and the temporal gates that control our
> ontological differentiation, and the attribution of existential modality=
> The ephemeral =C2=B0=C3=9FI=C2=B0=C2=AE ness that we feel but are unable to fully grasp =
=C2=B0V the
> fugacious and illusive 'Being' of the metaphysicians, is no more than a
> dim awareness of the presence of this internal cognitive enginery, a
> background hum or transcendental tinnitus. The imagined ongoing presence
> of this shadowy awareness of cognitive activity and the combinatorial for=
m
> of the self which lies proprietarily behind the perceived mental objects
> of our consciousness is what Heidegger calls 'Being' and what others call
> the 'human spirit' and yet others name as the 'self, the anima, the ego' =
or
> 'inner self' that is in touch with the unconscious.
>
> Jud Evans.

Thanks Jud, you have just labelled and named some beings that are precisely
not [what] being [is] (firstly, no beings are what being is {being is the
being of every being -- stars, animals, atoms, leaves, metaphysicians, list=
s
of beings, etc -- being belongs to all beings of every kind but is not
itself a being}; secondly, even if being were to be some kind of exalted,
superior, fundamental, subsisting, or othersuch being, then such a being
would not be anything remotely human (humans are openings to being); all th=
e
designations above in Jud are precisely the kind of reifications of being
that have ruled the traditional metaphysics of the past few centuries, and,
are precisely the reason Heidegger claims such metaphysical beings (such as=
,
'human spirit', 'ego', 'self-consciousness', etc) are the very forgetting,
the very occluding, of being. Jud here has precisely made clear why we need
a Heidegger, so genuine thanks to Jud and his aitistique 'thinking', for
helping out so concisely and blowing the whistle on wrong thinkings of
being, cheers :-).

ear buzzingly best wishing

michaelP

ps: Jud, what is The Andreus Priniciple?

Michael Pennamacoor
"Nietzsche is something that must be overcome :-)"

--MS_Mac_OE_3098089752_206129_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Transcendental Tinnitus</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#00FFFF">
The Pennama-Core of being: 
 
Jud wrote this recently --> 
 
> The Core of Being - The Andreus Priniciple. 
> 
> The AITist model that is emerging is of the BE mechanism processing un=
it as 
> the main onto-tempo-numeric cognitive processor which lies at the very=
core 
> of our language facility and thus of our human consciousness.  It=
is from 
> this primal cognitive processing system that the regulative messages a=
re 
> sent to the receptors that operate the conjugational verbial circuits =
and   
> the declensional nominal systems, and the temporal gates that control =
our   
> ontological differentiation, and the attribution of  existential =
modality.   
> The ephemeral  =C2=B0=C3=9FI=C2=B0=C2=AE ness that we feel but are unable to full=
y grasp =C2=B0V the 
> fugacious and illusive  'Being' of the metaphysicians, is no more=
than a 
> dim awareness of the presence of this internal cognitive enginery, a <=
BR>
> background hum or transcendental tinnitus.  The imagined ongoing =
presence 
> of this shadowy awareness of cognitive activity and the combinatorial =
form 
> of the self which  lies proprietarily behind the perceived mental=
objects 
> of our consciousness is what Heidegger calls 'Being' and what others c=
all 
> the 'human spirit' and yet others name as the 'self, the anima, the eg=
o' or 
>   'inner self' that is in touch with the unconscious. 
> 
> Jud Evans. 
 
Thanks Jud, you have just labelled and named s=
ome beings that are precisely not [what] being [is] (firstly, no bein=
gs are what being is {being is the being of every being -- stars, animals, a=
toms, leaves, metaphysicians, lists of beings, etc -- being belongs to all b=
eings of every kind but is not itself a being}; secondly, even if being were=
to be some kind of exalted, superior, fundamental, subsisting, or othersuch=
being, then such a being would not be anything remotely human (human=
s are openings to being); all the designations above in Jud are precisely=
 the kind of reifications of being that have ruled the traditional metap=
hysics of the past few centuries, and, are precisely the reason Heide=
gger claims such metaphysical beings (such as, 'human spirit', 'ego', 'self-=
consciousness', etc) are the very forgetting, the very occluding, of being. =
Jud here has precisely made clear why we need a Heidegger, so genuine=
thanks to Jud and his aitistique 'thinking', for helping out so concisely a=
nd blowing the whistle on wrong thinkings of being, cheers :-). 
 
ear buzzingly best wishing 
 
michaelP 
 
ps: Jud, what is The Andreus Priniciple=
? 
 
 
Michael Pennamacoor 
"Nietzsche is something that must be overcome :-)" 

</BODY>
</HTML>

--MS_Mac_OE_3098089752_206129_MIME_Part--

--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

+ Previous by Thread: Transcendental Tinnitus
+ Next by Thread: Trans-empirical

Partial thread listing:

Re: Transcendental Tinnitus, (continued…)

Re: Transcendental Tinnitus, Michael Pennamacoor

Trans-empirical, John Foster (2000-05-08)

<Possible follow-up(s)>

Re: Trans-empirical, Anthony Crifasi

Re: Trans-empirical, Kenneth Johnson

Re: Trans-empirical, Anthony Crifasi

<< Thread Prev < Date Prev…	^ date index+…	^ thread index+…	…Date Next > Thread Next >>
message ## 06495…