Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:10:58 EDT
It seems that Jud & I have been talking at cross
purposes here. I was not addressing the ontological
difference at all. I was talking about how modern
logicians (as well as Aristotle perhaps) have
distinguished different meaning of "to be," as in
1. There are giraffes in Africa.
2. My car is blue.
3. Paris is the capital of France.
Heidegger thought that these could all be viewed as
instances of an underlying being. My response to both
positions on being is that for some purposes a more
unified conception may be appropriate, for other
purposes a distinction needs to be made. That was the
point of my zoological example.
THERE ARE NO DIFFERENT MEANINGS OF "BE."
"Being" [a misunderstanding of the Greek "ousia"] is a meaningless cuckoo in
Therefore as a word DEVOID of meaning, [which is publicly admitted by many
it cannot qualify as a being "different" from the BE which HAS meaning.
It matters not whom is thinking or talking about "Being," whether that person
was some old Greek thousands of years ago, a sweaty scholastic in his
or some modern "logicians, or some pathetic Nazi fanatic, it all boils down
[as Michael has carefully pointed out]
to talking about absolutely nothing.
Whether you like it or not — whether you are aware of it or not — when you
how transcendentalists or people from the past think/thought about the
Indo-European concept of "BU"
[the Sanskrit version of BE which has come down to us in its various forms]
you are forced to think about
what Heidegger called: "The Ontological Difference."
First look at your sentence 1. above. Have you ever thought it fruitful to
analyse the words and descry what they mean?
Why do you think in English the word "There" is necessary? Now back to your
sentence 1. You have had more time to give it some thought — any ideas? Which
of the following concepts do you think is being communicated?
(a) There are giraffes in Africa. Giraffes exist in the world, in this
case in Africa.
Note: But they also exist in zoos all over the world, so in this case it is
not simply a question of indicating the "bare or pure" physical existence of
giraffes, but includes information about the WAY or the WHERE that they exist
— in this case the way or modality singled out for our attention is the fact
that they exist in Africa. So the BE-word ("ARE") allows us to attribute the
information that entities we call giraffes can be found existing in Africa.
(b) Africa exists as a place where giraffes can be found? Is the sentential
priority focussed upon existential modality of the giraffes, or is it meant
to tell us something about the existential modality of Africa? This is where
the word "There" comes in. Interestingly enough this semantic version of
the word "there" is classified as a PRONOUN standing for the word "giraffes" —
it is what linguists call a preparatory subject, and in modern Swedish
[closely related to English] the equivalent word "det" is still interchangeable in
meaning between "it" and "there." Difficult to grasp? Think of the answer to
'What kind of animals is it that live in Africa?" Answer: "It is giraffes
that live in Africa" Note: I use this form of sentence, which has slightly
different semantic implications, merely to illustrate the "preparatory subject"
role of the it/there pronominal device.
The role of the preparatory subject "There" is to alert us that the "modal
switch" (the existential focus) points to the way in which the giraffes are
existing in Africa, rather than the way that Africa is existing with giraffes
2. My car is blue." This is very straightforward. It tells us that my car
exists in the modality of being blue. Again, the BE-word ("IS") informs us
as to one of the ways in which my car exists. It does not directly bespeak of
the "bare or pure" physical existence of the car — it has no need to do that,
because the physical reality [or lack of it in a fictional sentence] has
already been established or instantiated with the words "My car."
3. Paris is the capital of France. Here again the "bare or pure" physical
existence of "Paris" aka "The Capital of France" is one of existential identity.
This means that "Paris" as a nominatum for that city is interchangeable
with: "The Capital of France," and has the existential modality of existing with
two names both of which are mutually understandable. In this way if you told
me that: "I am going to the capital of France," or "I am going to Paris" I
would be equally aware of your destination which ever form of sentence you
It can readily be seen that the role of the BE-Word in all the above
sentences is the same — the linguistic mechanism is such that it allows us to speak
of the existential modalities of the various subjects — the giraffes that
exist in the location of Africa, my car that exists as a blue car, and Paris/the
capital of France as existing as Paris and the capital of France. In none of
the examples does BE have the need to address the question of the pure
presence in the cosmos of the giraffes, my car or Paris/the capital of France,
because that information is provided and existentially instantiated by the
subject nominatives involved. [the words "Giraffe, my car and Paris/the capital of
Therefore the BE-word has only one meaning — there is no task of
"unification" involved, because there is no disparate parts to unite in the first place.
So what does the BE-word communicate? "BE" communicates information that
can be paraphrased like this: "exists is the following way."
1. Giraffes exist in the following way — in Africa.
2. My car exists in the following way — blue.
3. Paris exists in the following way — the capital of France.
That is the reason why the little word "is" has appeared so mysterious to
mankind, for it packs into its two little letters all of human descriptive
thought regarding the manner of the WAY the world exists around us.
All very straight forward and easily understood. The role of the BE-word
helps describe the way objects exist and humans live [or die}
Then the disaster struck. The invasion of the trannie body-snatchers —
body-snatchers in the sense that they invaded the body of grammatical clarity,
common-sense and logicality as described and set down in the greatest and most
perfect grammar in the history of mankind — the great grammar of Panini the
Indian scholar. This logical and very straightforwardly understood manner of
existential description was disrupted and interfered and undermined by certain
Greeks with by the introduction of notions of the existence of nonentities —
gods, transcendentalisms, spirits, which necessitated the adaptation
[hijacking] of the third person continuos version of the BE-word conjugation
"being" (the giraffes are being moved into a Wildlife Park" as a synonym for
"existence" itself, to mean that not only does a giraffe exist or a human exist,
but the existence of the a giraffe or a human exists too. This bizarre
ontological duality — the existence of that which exists and the additional
[indescribable nothing] This Greek aberration suited the early Christian church
perfectly and the ontological confusions of Plato were absorbed into the religious
doctrines of a vicious transcendentalism.
This is the illogical and grammatical horror which Heidegger describes as
"The ontological difference," the insidious "Being," which has no legitimate
place in the conjugational nexus of existential attribution, but is a
transcendentalist cuckoo in the nest of logicality which has infected the minds of
western scholarship like some insidious lingual and cognitive, virus dragging
in its wake the wholesale reification of abstraction which has lead inevitable
to the ills of mankind, the internecine religious wars throughout the
centuries, and the latest manifestation — the immolation and crushing to death of
thousands of people of one transcendentalist faith in "Being" by the believers
in a competing transcendentalist belief system of "Being." I refer of
course to the Twin Towers atrocity.
This is the result of the introduction of the transcendentalist notion of
"Being" and the bastardisation and perversion of grammar itself in the service
of the forces of darkness.
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
text/plain (text body -- kept)
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---