[lit-ideas] Re: Was Ist Dong? (Was: Geary, "Was Ist Ding?")
- From: palma <palma@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:45:33 -0400 (EDT)
speranza, la ringrazio, il punto non e' male una volta tanto...
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx wrote:
What Geary lacks, charming as he is, is a ken of the Romance languages.
In Italian, as Palma may witness, 'thing' is cosa, which is Latin causa,
only undipthonged. In French, chose fait la meme chose. Spanish causa.
One is surprised that Geary, who knows so many Hispanicks in restaurant
kitchens never heard of the 'cosa'.
In Latin, 'causa' was NOT a 'thing'. The 'thing' for the Romans was the
res, hence 'reality'. The Anglos overuse the word, 'really' (especially Valley
Girls).
I married an Irishman
O really
No, o Reilly.
----
The Philosophical Lexicon is Graeco-Roman in nature and there's no way
Heidegger, who rimmed a friend, could turn GERMAN into one! Ding-Dong, the
Witch is dead. Andreas may contradict me, as he was Heidelberg educated. But on
the whole, no philosophy without the Greeks.
Now, did the Greeks have a concept of 'thing', or ding-dong? Pragma is the
closest thing. E.g. Man is the measure of all THINGS. Pragmata.
But pragma is more thing done than thing itself.
The Ding an sich is, as Wager notes, a human construction. The noumenon is
possibly the worst Kantian neologism. For 'nous' is indeed the realm of the
spirit, not of the 'thing'.
Perhaps when we reflect on monkeys who masturbate (as Stone notes, a monkey
may masturbate, but an ape cannot be domesticated -- hence adultery among
humans) we will note that Kant was better in chosing OBJEKT as the
philosophical technicism. For the objekt is indeed the apokheimenon of
Empedocles.
Empedocles, who lived in Ionia many years ago, distinguished between the
Sub-Ject, or Hypokheimenon
and the
Ob-Ject.
When we use a dill-do, we objectify the penis of a man into an object. We
assume, or those who use a dilldo do, that the thing is an object, but we
personalise the dilldo. Some people name their dilldos after Christian names,
etc. (Dick, Harry, or Ike).
Ditto for inflatable women. These are said to be objects, but in sexual
perversions they are felt as human.
The paradoxical retroflection of the phenomenon is the prostitution where
objectifying the object is the subject. An orgasm cannot be faked by a male,
but yes by a woman (Derrida). You cannot BUY an orgasm; hence the idea of
objectual sexual relations is a misnomer. This Judy Butler knows.
She blows.
JL Speranza
Bordighera
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
?e ??, ?????e?? ?a?eda?µ?????? ? ? ? ?t? t?de
?e?µe?a, t??? ?e???? ??µas? pe???µe???.
/begin/read__>sig.file: postal address
palma
University of KwaZulu-Natal Philosophy
3rd floor of Memorial Tower Building
Howard College Campus
Durban 4041
South Africa
Tel off: [+27] 031 2601591 (sec: Mrs. Yolanda Hordyk) [+27] 031-2602292
Fax [+27] 031-2603031
mobile 07 62 36 23 91 calling from overseas +[27] 76 2362391
EMAIL: palma@xxxxxxxx
EMAIL: palma@xxxxxxxxxx
MY OFFICE IS A290@Mtb
spring term 2oo9 BEING & KNOWING (meet following module scheule at semiroom of
the last floor of mtbs)
*only when in Europe*: inst. J. Nicod
29 rue d'Ulm
f-75005 paris france
email me for details if needed at palma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
________
This e-mail message (and attachments) is confidential, and/or privileged and is
intended for the
use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail
you must not copy,
distribute, take any action in reliance on it or disclose it to anyone. Any
confidentiality or
privilege is not waived or lost by reason of mistaken delivery to you.
This entity is not responsible for any information not related to the business
of this entity. If you
received this e-mail in error please destroy the original and notify the sender.
Other related posts:
