In a message dated 21/11/2004 07:33:03 GMT Standard Time,
michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Jan wrote:
> The vacuum
> part of the partially vacuum space is empty, i.e. it contains or occupies
no
> matter but it must exist: ergo this phenomenon is a non-material being.
Michael:
yes, and equally matter is non-material, non-material be-ing, otherwise
there would have to be some sub-matter that matter was 'made of' (the
materialist's notion of be-ing is whatness and thatness seen as primarily
substantive [ousia], crudely, the be-ing of something is what ultimately and
eternally that something is made of)
Jud:
Firstly regarding the term *vacuum.*
The fact that the name *space* is attributed to a spatial area devoid of
entities or objects does not mean that *space* exists, any more than
*nothing* exists because the attributive term *nothing* is applied to a
location with
a lack of an entity or entities. Heideggerians appear to be afflicted with a
curious and complex mentational process or cognitive syndrome by which
existential actuality is bestowed upon non-existents
JUST BECAUSE those non-existent states of non-existence have NAMES.
Jud:
*Matter* is non-material because:
(A) *Matter* does not exist, being a *catch-all* [short-cut] word for the
unspecified constituent elements of unnamed entitic singularities.
(B) Because *matter* does not exist, the adjective *material* is also
rendered existentially/ontologically invalid.
The non-referential ontological juvenilisms: *Whatness* and *Thatness* do
not exist either, being no more than the English interrogative. pronoun
*what* conjoined to the suffix-*ness* referring to *state or condition,* and the
English identificatory pronoun *that* conjoined to the suffix-*ness*
referring to *state or condition.* The terms: *Whatness* and *Thatness* both imply
a questioning and qualificatory ontological ignorance of the actual
entitic manner in which an entity exists, which supports my contention that the
process of *object givenness* as a means of cognising of a being and
instantiating the *Being* of such a being is both crackpot and illusionary.
The ontological priority of the questioning of the *whatness and *thatness*
of a cow as revealed in the disclosive encounters that take place in Mumbai
as opposed to Milton Keynes are plainly entirely different.
The ontological anteriority of the questioning of the *whatness* and
*thatness* of a crucifix as revealed in the disclosive encounters that take place in
Dublin as opposed to Dubai are plainly entirely different. This is the
so-called "ontological priority of the question of Being." Heidegger's obsession
to bring out the primordial meaning of *Being,* of beings which long had *long
been forgotten, * and to deal with beings in this revelatory way is to
uncover the various ways in which the beings reveal their *Being,* fatally
neglected to take into account the primordial priorities which divide and
differentiate the cultural, sociological, religious or non-religious concerns and
beliefs that render the universal Daseinic instantiation worthless.
So much for Heidegger's *Universal Being.*
Michael:
and then the argument would pass to
such sub-matter (as non-material being), etc;
Jud:
The *argument* would NOT then pass to such sub-matter (as non-material
being), etc;
for *sub-matter* no more exists than *matter.* Descriptions of the entitic
make-up of
objects is referred to in terms of known particulate/energetic entities
which have been
identified and named.
Michael:
talking of 'vacuums', whether
in a partial or non-vacuum region,
Jud:
A *partial vacuum* no more exists that a *vacuum* although people do use the
term to describe a situation
when a flask has been emptied of most of the entities within it. However the
word *vacuum* is an unalienable *absolute.*
In other words a vacuum is either a *vacuum* or it is NOT a *vacuum.* Any
adjective [such as *partial*] which is used in combination with
an absolute simply qualifies it and changes it from an absolute to a
conditional. Anyway, both *vacuums* and *partial vacuums* are *conditions,*
or *circumstances* and *conditions* and *circumstances* don't exist - only
the entities which exist in inter-existential relation to other entities exist.
Michael:
if we get down dirty to the 'elementary
particles' of matter and energy, and in particular to those especially
stable systems the scientists speak of as 'atoms', we are told there exist
enormous relative distances (even vaster than the relative distances
involved in our solar system between the planets/moons and the sun) between
the outer electron shells and the nucleatic protons and neutrons, and even
though quanta (photons and the like) must pulse ('move' instantaneously
between shells) with changes in the energy input and output of the atom,
most of the atom consists in necessarily empty space, and the atom is the
prototypical material substratum of the world that is seen as filled with
matter/energy by certain materialists...
Jud:
The very fact that objects are *kept* or *forced* apart [or together [and
exist at what humans perceive to be a *large* or *close* *distance* from one
another proves that there exists, in the interstices between them, some
force/influence or physical energy or intensity which accomplishes this effect.
Therefore there is NO EMPTY *space* between them at all. Ontologically
speaking, *space, nothing, non-existent things, nonentity, an empty area, vacuum,
vacancy emptiness, etc.,* are crude, primitive cognitive abstractions,
beloved of transcendentalism, which have [to their shame] even persisted within the
realm of science up to the present day.
Michael:
Jan, I'm interested in the links between (both early and late) Wittgenstein
and Heidegger, and not just in their thinking of language. I'll write later
on this. Thanks for reminding us.
Jud:
I once read that originally Heidegger was going one way and Wittgenstein the
other. Then Heidegger turned and went back the other way again,
whilst Wittgenstein also turned and traversed the other way and passed
Heidegger going in the other direction. Just what Saint Martin and Saint Witt
*turned* AGAINST, and why they tolled-off their ontological rosary first one way
- and then the other - I have forgotten. However, I know where to find it
again, and I shall reacquaint myself with the two twisters and turners and
their twisting and turnings.
Regards,
Jud
Personal Website:
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
E-mail Discussion List:
nominalism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- 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 ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---