*the only thing that is, is that - which is immediate;
with a loss of immediacy, or a sense of urgency,
without an impeding imagining for a scenario of calamity,
what happens to being, when the there rapes the instance
of being, as that, which is here?*
(dasein... a there-after - d-a and being in general,
which for a fan of aristotle, as heidegger was,
is very much platonic) -
of course the immediacy of being,
but then there's the subversion of artistotelian
logic in heidegger...
namely the da / there...
which doesn't imply: a here...
i have to excuse myself within accordance
to how latin was read, and how the "barbarians"
inverted it, on its head...
e.g. if latin was written from left to right
in the "airthmetic" of sentence structures...
then the "barbarians" read it right to left...
the "airthmetic" implies how words were interwoven,
the basis of writing left to right is still intact,
we're not talking hebrew of arabic...
so i will excuse myself...
heidegger is a platonist in disguise,
the mere reason that he appreciates poetry
so much, exposes him from being a true
aristotelian...
on the basis of dasein...
let's play...
there's being...
and being there...
sein-da...
which works wonderfully in translating german into
english... sein-da...
but where's the there supposed to imply
if not the platonic world of ideas and thoughts
that compete with aristotelian sensual materialism
of an empirical point of view, that the now,
the here needs our attention more?
the jetztsein, the hiersein?
i know some ******** is going to point something
contradictory in my writing,
but at least i have heidegger allowing me the gratification
someone might gain, given enough insight into
what i've written so far...
heidegger subverted aristotelian phislophy
with a shade of, actually being a platonist...
fair enough, he made the evolutionary step from
cartesian subjectivity of the pronoun inclusive cogito ergo sum,
into the objectivity of dasein;
it seems like cartesian pluralism than, say, being somewhere
dedicated to a there of being per se...
to me, it just implies a continuum that
allows a form of mortal transcendence and the allowance
of further history to happen... i.e. there's being, and being will
persist in being "there", i.e. a future, which i will not be part of
on the argument that i'm trapped in an immediacy of hiersein.
p.s. *i'm going to ******* **** that pizza with my gob,
it's just sitting there, and i'm thinking...
too much fruit today... i need some dairy fat
and dough.*
May 29, 2017
May 29, 2017 at 4:57 PM UTC
*the only thing that is, is that - which is immediate;
with a loss of immediacy, or a sense of urgency,
without an impeding imagining for a scenario of calamity,
what happens to being, when the there rapes the instance
of being, as that, which is here?*
(dasein... a there-after - d-a and being in general,
which for a fan of aristotle, as heidegger was,
is very much platonic) -
of course the immediacy of being,
but then there's the subversion of artistotelian
logic in heidegger...
namely the da / there...
which doesn't imply: a here...
i have to excuse myself within accordance
to how latin was read, and how the "barbarians"
inverted it, on its head...
e.g. if latin was written from left to right
in the "airthmetic" of sentence structures...
then the "barbarians" read it right to left...
the "airthmetic" implies how words were interwoven,
the basis of writing left to right is still intact,
we're not talking hebrew of arabic...
so i will excuse myself...
heidegger is a platonist in disguise,
the mere reason that he appreciates poetry
so much, exposes him from being a true
aristotelian...
on the basis of dasein...
let's play...
there's being...
and being there...
sein-da...
which works wonderfully in translating german into
english... sein-da...
but where's the there supposed to imply
if not the platonic world of ideas and thoughts
that compete with aristotelian sensual materialism
of an empirical point of view, that the now,
the here needs our attention more?
the jetztsein, the hiersein?
i know some ******** is going to point something
contradictory in my writing,
but at least i have heidegger allowing me the gratification
someone might gain, given enough insight into
what i've written so far...
heidegger subverted aristotelian phislophy
with a shade of, actually being a platonist...
fair enough, he made the evolutionary step from
cartesian subjectivity of the pronoun inclusive cogito ergo sum,
into the objectivity of dasein;
it seems like cartesian pluralism than, say, being somewhere
dedicated to a there of being per se...
to me, it just implies a continuum that
allows a form of mortal transcendence and the allowance
of further history to happen... i.e. there's being, and being will
persist in being "there", i.e. a future, which i will not be part of
on the argument that i'm trapped in an immediacy of hiersein.
p.s. *i'm going to ******* **** that pizza with my gob,
it's just sitting there, and i'm thinking...
too much fruit today... i need some dairy fat
and dough.*