I'm not sure why but today I picked up my dusty dog-earred copy of
Sein und Zeit by Martin Heidegger. Prolly haven't looked at it in
earnest in thirty-some years.
In this book, Heidegger tries to explore the most fundamental concepts
of Being. That would seem to be a dusty exercise in itself but
Heidegger is fond of commonizing the language of experience, just
before torturing the language in an attempt to explain its
commonality.
He uses the example of a hammer.
To Heidegger, the hammer is a transparent instrument that only becomes
apparent as itself when it fail to act as a hammer should.
You see, Heidegger thought that equipment should simply be a means to
an end and not much fuss should be made about it. We use our tools to
accomplish our projects, and it is these projects which give meaning
to life. The only time that a tool should be brought under our
scrutiny as an object with properties inherent to itself, rather than
as a piece of instrumentality whose sole purpose is to further our
projects - is when the tool fails.
I have to wonder how Heidegger would have thought about the Wreck.
We spend an inordinate amount of time going over the relative merits
of this and that tool. Often this conversation is divorced from
application. It is a Glass Bead Game.
To Heidegger, the tool only became apparent when it failed to do what
needed to be done. The project was everything.
Maybe Heidegger would not have made out too well on the Wreck.
But I think he might have been a pretty good woodworker.
Regards, Tom.
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Buck Bros smoothing plane
No, you didn't!
You didn't *really* use those words in sequence, did you?
Kevin
Retreating to fluffieland ...
In article <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> wrote:
> As for Onanism, well, that's a personal choice,
. . . ? We were speaking of Onan?
Or are are you saying that Heidegger was just a big jerk-off?
> but I'd like to point out that Onan was framed, his crime was coitus
> interruptus, which is allowed by the church.
Naw, his crime was disobeying God's order to give his dead brother
children by knocking up his sister-in-law. The seed on the ground
couldn't serve its purpose, and so Onan incurred the Big Wrath.
Kevin
snip
Tom Watson wrote:
> To Heidegger, the hammer is a transparent instrument that only becomes
> apparent as itself when it fail to act as a hammer should.
> You see, Heidegger thought that equipment should simply be a means to
> an end and not much fuss should be made about it. We use our tools to
> accomplish our projects, and it is these projects which give meaning
> to life.
> I have to wonder how Heidegger would have thought about the Wreck.
> We spend an inordinate amount of time going over the relative merits
> of this and that tool. Often this conversation is divorced from
> application.
> To Heidegger, the tool only became apparent when it failed to do what
> needed to be done. The project was everything.
> Maybe Heidegger would not have made out too well on the Wreck.
> But I think he might have been a pretty good woodworker.
Heidegger shows the willingness to plan out a project, the book and the
thought that went into it, and so might have been a thoroughly competent
woodworker if he had chosen to become one. However, the conversations
we share about the merits of a tool versus a different one, tailed or
not for example, and the different flavors of tool, LN, Veritas, Buck
Bros, addresses something which he does not seem to appreciate. Both
LN and Veritas make very nice planes, so do Steve Knight or C&W. All
work properly and accomplish their purpose; to some degree, so does a
planer. There is an aspect of feeling involved, though, that transcends
purpose. This is not addresses in Heidegger's utilitarian view of the
tools. A planer or a Buck Bros plane will never give the same feeling
to the user that a fine plane will. No one makes bookmarks out of 2X4s
for the joy of using their Delta 13" planer or Buck Bros smoothing
plane. Anyone who owns a fine plane has shaved boards just for the feel
and sound, no other purpose than pleasure. Heidegger might have been
competent, he would never ahve been joyous.
In fluffie passion,
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
snip
Kevin Craig wrote:
> > Buck Bros smoothing plane
> No, you didn't!
> You didn't *really* use those words in sequence, did you?
Yup I really did, with mallets a poor thoughts. Tongue planted firmly
in cheek. I didn't get the sense of joy from Heidegger that Tom seems
to have found, so I wanted to give a discordance to the thought. I
first considered Anant, but what the Buck. <BSEG> It's possible, as
Tom suggests, that Heidegger WOULD have been immersed in the making of
the furniture/project but that IMHO dilutes the joy of using the tool
itself by transferring the joy to the end of the journey rather than in
the journey itself, which is what I was trying to suggest, but
apparently failed to. As for Onanism, well, that's a personal choice,
but I'd like to point out that Onan was framed, his crime was coitus
interruptus, which is allowed by the church.
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
By what you said Tom, a crappy tool is a bad tool because it causes us to
focus on it. So if we cry once and get a good tool the first time, we use
it to make projects and focus on projects themselves on not on the tool that
prevents us from making the project.
Sounds like my latest project and the problems caused by unsuitable tools.
--
Young Carpenter
"Violin playing and Woodworking are similar, it takes plenty of money,
plenty of practice, and you usually make way more noise than intended"
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:53:13 -0700, "JackD" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The only time that a tool should be brought under our
> >> scrutiny as an object with properties inherent to itself, rather than
> >> as a piece of instrumentality whose sole purpose is to further our
> >> projects - is when the tool fails.
> >>
> >> I have to wonder how Heidegger would have thought about the Wreck.
> >>
> >> Regards, Tom.
> >
> >With this logic we would have to limit our discussion to craftsman and HF
> >tools with the occasional dished table saw and out of square square.
> >
> >-Jack
> >(Humor aside, I think we do focus on the failures of tools - and their
> >operators - more than anything else.)
> >
>
> I haven't written a paper on Heidegger in quite a few years but I
> think that he would address your concerns thusly:
>
> A POS tool, be it Craftsman, HF, or whatever, is only a tool, in the
> fullest sense, if it performs its function flawlessly.
>
> That thing which is really a tool fades into the background of our
> thinking as we go about our task. If the tool draws attention to
> itself, we are alienated from our true purpose and the tool detracts
> from our experience as workers in pursuit of our task.
>
> Unfortunately, I own a fair number of balky tools, which draw
> attention to themselves as tools by performing less than flawlessly.
>
> When I watch someone like a Toshio Odate, or a Frank Klausz, there is
> no attention to the tool. The tool is a given. The work is
> everything.
>
> I'm not saying that a craftsman does not give proper attention to the
> selection, purchase and maintenance of tools. My point is that too
> many get bogged down at that level and do not go on to the work at
> hand.
>
> When I look at a Goddard-Townsend piece, I do not see the tooling but
> the result. In thinking about the tooling, I am often amazed at our
> alleged need for tools which were not available to these extraordinary
> creators.
>
> It is the created thing that is important and the act of creation that
> is worthy.
>
> My personal experience with tools that are not, in fact, tools, has
> led me back to neander land. At this level the tool is less of an
> issue in itself than at the level of more complex instruments.
>
> I think it was my compressor that finally pissed me off.
>
>
> Regards, Tom.
> Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
> Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
> http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>To Heidegger, the tool only became apparent when it failed to do what
>needed to be done. The project was everything.
This is a classic error that woodworkers have made throughout history.
You see, a chair is really just a tool for eating dinner. Woodworkers
focus on the chair as some sort of project, rather than as a tool that
should fade into the background.
>But I think he might have been a pretty good woodworker.
I don't think so, but he might have been a pretty good dinner eater.
Ken Muldrew
[email protected]
(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)
[email protected] (Conan the Librarian) wrote:
>[email protected] (Ken Muldrew) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> This is a classic error that woodworkers have made throughout history.
>> You see, a chair is really just a tool for eating dinner. Woodworkers
>> focus on the chair as some sort of project, rather than as a tool that
>> should fade into the background.
>
> Absolutely. And the table is really just an instrument for holding
>the dinner to be eaten. And the food is just a tool for providing us
>sustenance. And the houses we live in are just to protect us from the
>elements. And ...
History is just one damn tool after another.
There is no project.
Well...except for this desk I'm about to start. It certainly feels
like a project. I don't think I'd be fussing over it so much if it was
just a tool.
Ken Muldrew
[email protected]
(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 19:54:58 GMT, [email protected] (Ken Muldrew)
>wrote:
>
>>Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>To Heidegger, the tool only became apparent when it failed to do what
>>>needed to be done. The project was everything.
>>
>>This is a classic error that woodworkers have made throughout history.
>>You see, a chair is really just a tool for eating dinner. Woodworkers
>>focus on the chair as some sort of project, rather than as a tool that
>>should fade into the background.
>
>On the odd occasions that a chair has revealed itself to be a non
>chair by breaking and dumping me on my ass during dinner, it has at
>least interrupted my project i.e. eating dinner, as well as pissing me
>off.
:-)
I wonder if there's a newsgroup where people endlessly discuss the
merits of various "eating tools".
Ken Muldrew
[email protected]
(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:53:13 -0700, "JackD" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The only time that a tool should be brought under our
>> scrutiny as an object with properties inherent to itself, rather than
>> as a piece of instrumentality whose sole purpose is to further our
>> projects - is when the tool fails.
>>
>> I have to wonder how Heidegger would have thought about the Wreck.
>>
>> Regards, Tom.
>
>With this logic we would have to limit our discussion to craftsman and HF
>tools with the occasional dished table saw and out of square square.
>
>-Jack
>(Humor aside, I think we do focus on the failures of tools - and their
>operators - more than anything else.)
>
I haven't written a paper on Heidegger in quite a few years but I
think that he would address your concerns thusly:
A POS tool, be it Craftsman, HF, or whatever, is only a tool, in the
fullest sense, if it performs its function flawlessly.
That thing which is really a tool fades into the background of our
thinking as we go about our task. If the tool draws attention to
itself, we are alienated from our true purpose and the tool detracts
from our experience as workers in pursuit of our task.
Unfortunately, I own a fair number of balky tools, which draw
attention to themselves as tools by performing less than flawlessly.
When I watch someone like a Toshio Odate, or a Frank Klausz, there is
no attention to the tool. The tool is a given. The work is
everything.
I'm not saying that a craftsman does not give proper attention to the
selection, purchase and maintenance of tools. My point is that too
many get bogged down at that level and do not go on to the work at
hand.
When I look at a Goddard-Townsend piece, I do not see the tooling but
the result. In thinking about the tooling, I am often amazed at our
alleged need for tools which were not available to these extraordinary
creators.
It is the created thing that is important and the act of creation that
is worthy.
My personal experience with tools that are not, in fact, tools, has
led me back to neander land. At this level the tool is less of an
issue in itself than at the level of more complex instruments.
I think it was my compressor that finally pissed me off.
Regards, Tom.
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
[email protected] (Ken Muldrew) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> This is a classic error that woodworkers have made throughout history.
> You see, a chair is really just a tool for eating dinner. Woodworkers
> focus on the chair as some sort of project, rather than as a tool that
> should fade into the background.
Absolutely. And the table is really just an instrument for holding
the dinner to be eaten. And the food is just a tool for providing us
sustenance. And the houses we live in are just to protect us from the
elements. And ...
> >But I think he might have been a pretty good woodworker.
>
> I don't think so, but he might have been a pretty good dinner eater.
And I expect he would have been happy eating the same thing every
day.
ObWW -- How much wood would John Stuart Mill mill if John Stuart
Mill could mill wood?
Chuck Vance
Just say (tmPL) I Kant believe I'm really doing this.
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 07:09:15 GMT, Larry Jaques <jake@di\/ersify.com>
wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:26:57 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
>pixelated:
>
>
>>I have to wonder how Heidegger would have thought about the Wreck.
>
>I would imagine his "how" to be "briefly." His "what" would
>most probably have taken much longer to explain, Tawmmy.
>
You are encumbered by a literal understanding of the average
everydayness of grammar. The "how" goes to the method of thought.
the "what" is subservient to the "how".
Regards, Tom
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 13:05:51 GMT, "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Larry Jaques" <jake@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> You bloody philo-poetic types indubitably derive my capra hircus.
>
>Me too.
Both of yuz is ole goats.
Regards, Tom
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:26:57 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I have to wonder how Heidegger would have thought about the Wreck.
He'd probably have crossposted to rec.photo, and not unreasonably so.
What connection does The Wreck have with woodworking, and how much
with tool collecting ? How much do cameras have to do with
photography, and how much with male costume jewellery ?
When I first started reading rec.wood, I couldn't believe how many
"What table saw should I buy ?" questions there were. Then I got my
first table saw, and saw the point. Then I got my Wadkin and stopped
worrying about it.
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods
"Man is nothing but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of
existentialism."
J. P. Sartre, 1947
But it's so, like, tough, you know? making yourself, because you're both
sculptor and clay. Or wood and worker, eh?
Discuss.
Bob
But then, Seriousness is the only refuge of the shallow.
Oscar Wilde
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm not sure why but today I picked up my dusty dog-earred copy of
> Sein und Zeit by Martin Heidegger. Prolly haven't looked at it in
> earnest in thirty-some years.
>
> In this book, Heidegger tries to explore the most fundamental concepts
> of Being. That would seem to be a dusty exercise in itself but
> Heidegger is fond of commonizing the language of experience, just
> before torturing the language in an attempt to explain its
> commonality.
>
> He uses the example of a hammer.
>
> To Heidegger, the hammer is a transparent instrument that only becomes
> apparent as itself when it fail to act as a hammer should.
>
> You see, Heidegger thought that equipment should simply be a means to
> an end and not much fuss should be made about it. We use our tools to
> accomplish our projects, and it is these projects which give meaning
> to life. The only time that a tool should be brought under our
> scrutiny as an object with properties inherent to itself, rather than
> as a piece of instrumentality whose sole purpose is to further our
> projects - is when the tool fails.
>
> I have to wonder how Heidegger would have thought about the Wreck.
>
> We spend an inordinate amount of time going over the relative merits
> of this and that tool. Often this conversation is divorced from
> application. It is a Glass Bead Game.
>
> To Heidegger, the tool only became apparent when it failed to do what
> needed to be done. The project was everything.
>
> Maybe Heidegger would not have made out too well on the Wreck.
>
> But I think he might have been a pretty good woodworker.
>
>
> Regards, Tom.
> Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
> Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
> http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
Bob Schmall writes:
>"Man is nothing but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of
>existentialism."
>
> J. P. Sartre, 1947
>
>
>
>But it's so, like, tough, you know? making yourself, because you're both
>sculptor and clay. Or wood and worker, eh?
Funny. I had to make an emergency pit stop earlier today. Lowe's, of course. As
I came out, I noticed that the entrance doors had a huge NO EXIT sign on them.
Reminded me of ol' Jean Paul at that time.
Charlie Self
"The income tax has made liars out of more Americans than golf."
Will Rogers
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob Schmall writes:
>
> >"Man is nothing but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle
of
> >existentialism."
> >
> > J. P. Sartre, 1947
> >
> >
> >
> >But it's so, like, tough, you know? making yourself, because you're both
> >sculptor and clay. Or wood and worker, eh?
>
> Funny. I had to make an emergency pit stop earlier today. Lowe's, of
course. As
> I came out, I noticed that the entrance doors had a huge NO EXIT sign on
them.
> Reminded me of ol' Jean Paul at that time.
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "The income tax has made liars out of more Americans than golf."
> Will Rogers
And that reminds me of the last episode of Seinfeld.
Bob
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Bob Schmall writes:
>
> >> Funny. I had to make an emergency pit stop earlier today. Lowe's, of
> >course. As
> >> I came out, I noticed that the entrance doors had a huge NO EXIT sign on
> >them.
> >> Reminded me of ol' Jean Paul at that time.
> >>
> >> Charlie Self
> >>
> >> "The income tax has made liars out of more Americans than golf."
> >> Will Rogers
> >
> >And that reminds me of the last episode of Seinfeld.
> >
>
> I know I'm missing something, somewhere, but I have never been able to get
> through more than 2-3 minutes of Seinfeld. I find him almost as funny as my
> grandkids were 5 years ago (at 8 and 9 respectively...as teenagers, they're
> even less funny).
>
> Charlie Self
>
Well Charlie, we agree on a few things. :-) I watched one or two
episodes of Seinfeld; what I thought was really funny is that someone
actually convinced people to invest in producing this show. Even more
funny that people actually watched this show.
Bob Schmall writes:
>> Funny. I had to make an emergency pit stop earlier today. Lowe's, of
>course. As
>> I came out, I noticed that the entrance doors had a huge NO EXIT sign on
>them.
>> Reminded me of ol' Jean Paul at that time.
>>
>> Charlie Self
>>
>> "The income tax has made liars out of more Americans than golf."
>> Will Rogers
>
>And that reminds me of the last episode of Seinfeld.
>
I know I'm missing something, somewhere, but I have never been able to get
through more than 2-3 minutes of Seinfeld. I find him almost as funny as my
grandkids were 5 years ago (at 8 and 9 respectively...as teenagers, they're
even less funny).
Charlie Self
"The income tax has made liars out of more Americans than golf."
Will Rogers
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob Schmall writes:
>
> >> Funny. I had to make an emergency pit stop earlier today. Lowe's, of
> >course. As
> >> I came out, I noticed that the entrance doors had a huge NO EXIT sign
on
> >them.
> >> Reminded me of ol' Jean Paul at that time.
> >>
> >> Charlie Self
> >>
> >> "The income tax has made liars out of more Americans than golf."
> >> Will Rogers
> >
> >And that reminds me of the last episode of Seinfeld.
> >
>
> I know I'm missing something, somewhere, but I have never been able to get
> through more than 2-3 minutes of Seinfeld. I find him almost as funny as
my
> grandkids were 5 years ago (at 8 and 9 respectively...as teenagers,
they're
> even less funny).
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "The income tax has made liars out of more Americans than golf."
> Will Rogers
In the final episode of Seinfeld, the four leading characters, a bunch of
self-absorbed fools, are locked up together in the same cell for a year. In
"No Exit," three very diverse, recently dead people wind up in a room in
(literally) Hotel Hell with the door locked. As the story unfolds, it
becomes apparent that they will never be able to coexist, creating their own
hell. Sartre's point is that humans make their own lives and afterlives.
Not a freakin' chance that this could be ObWW.
Bob
"Larry Jaques" <jake@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 18:51:41 -0400, Tom Watson
> <[email protected]> pixelated:
>
> >On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 07:09:15 GMT, Larry Jaques <jake@di\/ersify.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:26:57 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
> >>pixelated:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I have to wonder how Heidegger would have thought about the Wreck.
> >>
> >>I would imagine his "how" to be "briefly." His "what" would
> >>most probably have taken much longer to explain, Tawmmy.
> >>
> >
> >You are encumbered by a literal understanding of the average
> >everydayness of grammar. The "how" goes to the method of thought.
> >the "what" is subservient to the "how".
>
> You bloody philo-poetic types indubitably derive my capra hircus.
Me too.
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 01:27:33 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
> Anyone who owns a fine plane has shaved boards just for the feel
>and sound, no other purpose than pleasure. Heidegger might have been
>competent, he would never ahve been joyous.
>In fluffie passion,
>Dave in Fairfax
I resist the idea that he would not have been joyous. He would be
joyous in the creation of the project that he had set out to build.
I further think that he would consider the production of shavings for
the sake of the aesthetic pleasure involved in the creating of
shavings to be a different project and somewhat onanistic.
This is not to diminish the project of the production of shavings. It
is only to point out that it is not the same as making furniture.
The composer can take great joy and pleasure in his instrument. In
fact, he is likely to demand an instrument that gives him pleasure in
its use.
Sometimes the tenor of the Wreck is to laud the Bosendorfer at the
expense of the music.
Regards, Tom.
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
The only time that a tool should be brought under our
> scrutiny as an object with properties inherent to itself, rather than
> as a piece of instrumentality whose sole purpose is to further our
> projects - is when the tool fails.
>
> I have to wonder how Heidegger would have thought about the Wreck.
>
> Regards, Tom.
With this logic we would have to limit our discussion to craftsman and HF
tools with the occasional dished table saw and out of square square.
-Jack
(Humor aside, I think we do focus on the failures of tools - and their
operators - more than anything else.)
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 19:54:58 GMT, [email protected] (Ken Muldrew)
wrote:
>Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>To Heidegger, the tool only became apparent when it failed to do what
>>needed to be done. The project was everything.
>
>This is a classic error that woodworkers have made throughout history.
>You see, a chair is really just a tool for eating dinner. Woodworkers
>focus on the chair as some sort of project, rather than as a tool that
>should fade into the background.
On the odd occasions that a chair has revealed itself to be a non
chair by breaking and dumping me on my ass during dinner, it has at
least interrupted my project i.e. eating dinner, as well as pissing me
off.
Regards, Tom
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 01:27:33 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
Snip
> Sometimes the tenor of the Wreck is to laud the Bosendorfer at the
> expense of the music.
>
>
> Regards, Tom.
> Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
> Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
> http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
Yeah, but I'm not a furniture maker. I'm a woodworker. I think
that's an important distiction. I'm not making end tables so that I
have end tables. Hell, I could go buy them for probably less money
and DEFINITELY less hassle. I'm building end tables to _build_ end
tables. For me (and a lot of others, I suspect), woodworking isn't a
destination. It's a journey.
I realize this is a bit off the original topic, but it headed this
way.
-Phil Crow
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:26:57 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
pixelated:
>I have to wonder how Heidegger would have thought about the Wreck.
I would imagine his "how" to be "briefly." His "what" would
most probably have taken much longer to explain, Tawmmy.
>We spend an inordinate amount of time going over the relative merits
>of this and that tool. Often this conversation is divorced from
>application. It is a Glass Bead Game.
Bitchen blurfls be bloody booful, boy. What'd Heidi know?
>To Heidegger, the tool only became apparent when it failed to do what
>needed to be done. The project was everything.
But to others, life is a journey. End product is all well
and good, but doing it/getting there is at LEAST half the fun.
>Maybe Heidegger would not have made out too well on the Wreck.
>
>But I think he might have been a pretty good woodworker.
He would have used pine/stain/poly, fer sher. That's his
"commonality" for ya.
Apologies (or not) to Jums.
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 21:46:52 GMT, Larry Jaques <jake@di\/ersify.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 08:10:50 -0400, Tom Watson
><[email protected]> pixelated:
>>Where the hell is Jummy?
>
>You know him. He's probably off somewhere making
>those stunning pine cone turkeys to sell for the
>upcoming holidays.
I don't know...in a couple more days we should maybe start passing the
hat for bail money.
Regards, Tom
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 23:09:35 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
pixelated:
>On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 22:42:54 -0400, "Carlo" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;
>>A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!
>
>A careful reading of the Dialogues would show that Socrates was a
>bugger, pissed or not.
When in Rome, fella?
(well, Athens is close.)
.-.
Life is short. Eat dessert first!
---
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> I think it was my compressor that finally pissed me off.
>>
>
> Oh, maaaannnn - I just love my compressor, in fact my compressor is the
> Catherine Zeta-whats-her-name of my toolz.
Jones.
She's married to some unbelievably ugly rich guy though. Some 50-something
actor dude who's probably old enough to be her father. Pervert.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 16:54:18 GMT, [email protected] (Ken Muldrew)
pixelated:
>I wonder if there's a newsgroup where people endlessly discuss the
>merits of various "eating tools".
Hmmm...
---
Is it time for your medication or mine?
http://diversify.com Custom Website Applications
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 18:51:41 -0400, Tom Watson
<[email protected]> pixelated:
>On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 07:09:15 GMT, Larry Jaques <jake@di\/ersify.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 20:26:57 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
>>pixelated:
>>
>>
>>>I have to wonder how Heidegger would have thought about the Wreck.
>>
>>I would imagine his "how" to be "briefly." His "what" would
>>most probably have taken much longer to explain, Tawmmy.
>>
>
>You are encumbered by a literal understanding of the average
>everydayness of grammar. The "how" goes to the method of thought.
>the "what" is subservient to the "how".
You bloody philo-poetic types indubitably derive my capra hircus.
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 22:42:54 -0400, "Carlo" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;
>A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!
A careful reading of the Dialogues would show that Socrates was a
bugger, pissed or not.
Regards, Tom.
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 08:10:50 -0400, Tom Watson
<[email protected]> pixelated:
>On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 07:09:15 GMT, Larry Jaques <jake@di\/ersify.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Apologies (or not) to Jums.
>
>Where the hell is Jummy?
You know him. He's probably off somewhere making
those stunning pine cone turkeys to sell for the
upcoming holidays.
.-.
Life is short. Eat dessert first!
---
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 16:54:18 GMT, [email protected] (Ken Muldrew)
wrote:
>I wonder if there's a newsgroup where people endlessly discuss the
>merits of various "eating tools".
I submit the following to you in the interest of science. You may
draw your own confusions.
Comparison of Google hits in rec.norm v. rec.food.cooking using the
same search terms. Data valid as of October 7, 2003 - 1600 eastern.
Search Term rec.food.cooking rec.norm
pot 40,600 2,550
pan 57,100 1,600
meat 81,500 2,130
potato 23,600 443
vegetable 22,800 1,120
bread 57,700 1,670
mixer 10,200 284
microwave 15,700 1,150
wood 9,760 252,000
saw 28,400 239,000
drill 775 43,500
plan 13,000 36,100
recipe 185,000 1,430
chisel 137 12,800
hammer 1,480 9,060
sex 5,300 1,590
drugs 2,210 818
rock and roll 700 521
beer 18,100 4,020
bullshit 1,530 1,010
Regards, Tom
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
It's gotta be my twisted sense of humour, but I can't help thinking of Mony
Python now...
The Philosopher's Song
(Monty Python)
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away
Half a crate of whiskey every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am"
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm not sure why but today I picked up my dusty dog-earred copy of
> Sein und Zeit by Martin Heidegger. Prolly haven't looked at it in
> earnest in thirty-some years.
>
snip...