Gary C. Moore With Richard Sansom

11 /04/2004

Richard Sansom:
Do you use an online translator or do you have a program on your computer?

Gary.C.Moore: Both. With the emphasis on practical and business usage, it is very helpful in getting the ACTIVE sense of the words as opposed to the proper 'abstract' scholarly usage. Heidegger likes to makes fools of his interpreters precisely on that account. He must be read literally.

But this is why Jud is so important. Even if you have sense enough, and few Heidegger scholars do, to look for the active praxis of the words in Heidegger, they hang up at point of "show and tell". For instance, the things I have been quoting from Hemmings. He is 'showing' quite well that Heidegger gets rid of subjectivity. But if you get rid of "subjectivity", and Heidegger means ALL senses of subjectivity, you get rid of "self" which is the "object" of subjectivity". He says the same thing about "being". He calls them both literally and with clear intent "nothing." So then why keep talking about them as if they were something in their not-being? If they are nothing, then they are nothing.

Now, talking about the DESIRES that NEED these concepts as posited against logic and experience and anything at all that makes sense, the DESIRES are well worth talking about. They are the all-determining factor. Jud and Jon, o linguistic geniuses, Is there a language that REALLY gets rid of both "self" and "being"? It would also have to either get rid of "object" and any kind of "identity" other than created by the imagination BUT ALSO with a BUILT IN SIGNIFIER that, sense they are creations of the imagination, they are not experientially or logically true? Because, once you cease reminding yourself that "self", "being", "object", and "identity" have absolutely no correspondence to sensual reality other than merely pragmatic--which means they can be immediately changed to fit a changed purpose just like in real life--which means they are based on imagination and changed by imagination to fit a futural purpose that does not literally exist-- THEN the RESULT of that FORGETTING makes them all 'real' again because it 'feels' if you use them as if real then they must 'be' (endure continuously through time) as real. This immediately opens the door to believing in immortality -- a real endurance through time-- and God -- that which supports ontologically endurance through time and guarantees it will be there when you get back to it. So the consequence of being a real "atheist" means you get rid of "subjectivity", "self", "object", "identity", "endurance" and continuously apply Heisenberg's rule than observation of any kind continuously changes the object observed so that it cannot 'be' the same object from moment to moment-- the moment itself, strangely, seems never to change-- no . . . not "never" . . .

So, how do you speak as if you really mean it? Or-is it - how do you speak as if you really do not mean it? How do you speak conveying the literal experience before interpretation sets in like an infection and makes it abstract and suddenly gives you "subjectivity', "self", "object", "identity", "endurance" (even of the same meaning of the word - it too is an object observed), "purpose", "intent", etc? I know of course this would turn the whole world upside-down, as Christopher Hill would say, and Christopher Hill also shows what happens when one speaks what one REALLY thinks is real and acts upon it. But those words just keeping bringing back to life old ghosts to rule our lives: "You alone are responsible for this filthy, despicable act and you alone!" But one knows very well it is never that simple, that many things had to be in place out of a person's control for "them" to perform that "filthy act". Real situations do not come from nowhere created ex nihilo by the GOD of 'self'. If acts must be judged, they must be judged by other criteria than by that which does not exist.

So even when Hemmings says Heidegger says the self is nothing, he indicates that this nothing of a self can come into a real situation in real space-time. And, as Jud would say, this is logically insane-it is pragmatic for certain underhanded purposes, i. e., if you can discover the 'nothing' of self as 'real' in certain' circumstances, then God can be real in precisely those same circumstances. To have a "self" you need God: to have a God you need 'self'. I think Hemming along with Heidegger have established this quite clearly.

And in one sense this is perfectly right. But since David Hume has clearly, though only implicitly for legal reasons, demonstrated exactly this logical and necessary connection, he has also put it in its real context. On the one hand, as absolute ideas, they are . . . trivial-not non-existent, they are actually necessary, but BEING NECESSARY DOES NOT MAKE THEM REAL OR IMPORTANT!

It is necessary that if you drop a twenty-five pound rock on your foot, it will hurt amongst other things. But this NECESSARY fact is trivial because you will not do it intentionally. It only becomes IMPORTANT by ACCIDENT! On the other hand, they receive all their power and importance from . . . the imagination. The transcendental relation in the imagination between self and God EXPANDS the imagination to be able to grasp almost anything including the whole universe. God, in literal acts, is always futural, a stretching out of intent to its farthest reaches. It makes a person always want to know MORE . . . But there is certainly no reason for this to be a Christian God other than cultural upbringing or monotheistic in the slightest OR EVEN VERBAL or any particular framework of "belief" whatsoever. It is a COMPLETELY FREE spielraum where everybody plays whether they want to or not.

And, yes, this applies to Iraq and sex because all you know is what you read or see. You cannot read or see intent or even context because "context" is utterly meaningless unless you know every EFFECTIVE detail and that is essentially, pragmatically impossible. And if it is impossible for the reasons I have been saying then, just like Jud says "being" is nonsense, political discussion is nonsense because A) you cannot know what is actually going on since you have not experienced it yourself; B) you can never judge intent and words because you can never know whose intent or which words were decisive (decisions have been finalized usually for very TRIVIAL reasons IN THEMSELVES, i. e., "A decision must be made now!" , i. e., temporality decides not really the purpose which has just been partially frozen in an incomplete distortion that CANNOT THEN REALLY fully reflect anyone's intent, i. e., AGAIN-the situation becomes IMPORTANT in reality by ACCIDENT, by external limits that have nothing to do with purpose; C) if one cannot in reality effect political decisions, why fight about it? Deciding who is right and who is wrong is as ridiculously trivial as playing a game of tic-tac-do; D) EVEN IF you could effect political decisions, if you have any sense whatsoever, you know very well your decisions as "interpreted" by others to their own purposes will probably be disastrous and accomplish exactly the opposite of what you desired.

Look at what happened under John F. Kennedy an undeniably intelligent president - disaster after disaster - with a few partial successes that were a) temporary, and b) relatively trivial except for the people directly involved, or c) temporary stand-offs temporarily re-establishing the status quo. If that was all he could do because he was chained to the decisions of previous administrations and, much worse, the uncontrollable behavior of his 'supposed' subordinates, what could we possibly expect from a president of much lesser ability? The ship of state NORMALLY operates as a ship without knowledge of any clear-cut responsibility of who is in control of the rudder.

That was why Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a superior president: he KNEW he had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER about what was the right thing to do, but he knew for sure the present state of affairs was WRONG. So he deliberately had to play games and see what would happen. If something worked, then he built off of that. HE HAD NO PRECEIVED IDEA OF WHAT WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT OR WRONG WHATSOEVER -in general. When he did think that way, things fucked up fast. But he usually could avoid that and usually kept several different games going on at once so that success in one MIGHT be transferred to another. BUT IT WAS ALWAYS THE SUCCESS FROM EXPERIENCE NOT ABSTRACTIONS! Many games had to be lost in order to win just one. However, he let himself have as free a field of options as possible. He was much like Charles DeGaulle in this way, a man he loathed. He could make the big decisions without obvious qualms so everyone around him thought knew what he was doing when he in reality he knew he knew nothing. Sound familiar?

So, unless someone has "the inside track" one is blabbering total nonsense.

AND-- HOW would you 'know' for real you had "the inside track" or just a version someone gave you ?

Gary:

It is necessary that if you drop a twenty-five pound rock on your foot, it will hurt amongst other things. But this NECESSARY fact is trivial because you will not do it intentionally. It only becomes IMPORTANT by ACCIDENT! On the other hand, they receive all their power and importance from . . . the imagination. The transcendental relation in the imagination between self and God EXPANDS the imagination to be able to grasp almost anything including the whole universe. God, in literal acts, is always futural, a stretching out of intent to its farthest reaches. It makes a person always want to know MORE . . . But there is certainly no reason for this to be a Christian God other than cultural upbringing or monotheistic in the slightest OR EVEN VERBAL or any particular framework of “belief” whatsoever. It is a COMPLETELY FREE spielraum where everybody plays whether they want to or not.

Richard:

When you say: “It only becomes IMPORTANT by ACCIDENT!” are you saying that whatever happens, only if it is a surprise does it have a seriousness or need to act or think about? If so, I agree, but perhaps not for the same reasons you give. I believe we go through our day, for the most part, on a kind of automatic pilot, that is a constant anticipatory state, wherein whatever occurs that is NOT anticipated gets immediate and special attention. We generally do not seek out surprises, or expect them, but we are geared to handle them in various ways. As for the role of our imagination, I think those with a high degree of imagination are more likely to handle surprises more quickly and more adroitly. I do not see, however, that “God” need come into the picture. We are animals – we have our human animal antennae up, but perhaps no more finely tuned than those of wild animals who live in constant awareness of the threat of being eaten – in fact, less in some sense, depending on our environment.

Gary:

And, yes, this applies to Iraq and sex because all you know is what you read or see. You cannot read or see intent or even context because “context” is utterly meaningless unless you know every EFFECTIVE detail and that is essentially, pragmatically impossible. And if it is impossible for the reasons I have been saying then, just like Jud says “being” is nonsense, political discussion is nonsense because A) you cannot know what is actually going on since you have not experienced it yourself; B) you can never judge intent and words because you can never know whose intent or which words were decisive (decisions have been finalized usually for very TRIVIAL reasons IN THEMSELVES, i. e., “A decision must be made now!” , i. e., temporality decides not really the purpose which has just been partially frozen in an incomplete distortion that CANNOT THEN REALLY fully reflect anyone’s intent, i. e., AGAIN—the situation becomes IMPORTANT in reality by ACCIDENT, by external limits that have nothing to do with purpose; C) if one cannot in reality effect political decisions, why fight about it? Deciding who is right and who is wrong is as ridiculously trivial as playing a game of tic-tac-do; D) EVEN IF you could effect political decisions, if you have any sense whatsoever, you know very well your decisions as “interpreted” by others to their own purposes will probably be disastrous and accomplish exactly the opposite of what you desired.

Richard:

The argument above that political discussion are nonsense surely applies equally to philosophical, linguistic, economic, psychological – just about anything we do discuss – including this one. Discussions, arguments, debates are apparently part of our human entertainment – little more, unless there is some decision to be made as a result of the discussion – as with a jury discussing a case. We can never expect to know with any exactitude what is being said to us, and even direct evidentiary material is often suspect. We digest, mix our own beliefs and proclivities, and out comes an opinion. More than likely that outcome is predetermined by our core beliefs. Among the more open-minded among us, there is the chance that a mind might be changed as a result of something said or observed. As for intentions, since we can never fully know the root intentions of another, we must rely on our abilities to ferret out what is really being said or inferred, using our people experience – that’s about all we can do.

Regards,

Richard