Heidegger

Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>>That’s why I added below that one *in principle cannot* detect
>>>anything of your type 3, since any form of human detection will be by
>>>definition phenomenal (whether a mental or sensory phenomenon), and
>>>therefore of type 2. Type 3 realities are therefore undetectable *in
>>>principle* and not […]

Joseph Polanik wrote:
> >That’s why I added below that one *in principle cannot* detect anything
> >of your type 3, since any form of human detection will be by definition
> >phenomenal (whether a mental or sensory phenomenon), and therefore of
> >type 2. Type 3 realities are therefore undetectable *in principle* and
> […]

Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>>Since all human “evidence” and “explanation” is derived from sense
>>>experience, which is obviously phenomenal, then I-2 has *never* had
>>>any evidence or experience of *anything* being instantiated by I-1 or
>>>I-3, much less I-2 itself.
>>this is a very much under […]

On 11/26/07, Joseph Polanik wrote:
> Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>
> >Since all human “evidence” and “explanation” is derived from sense
> >experience, which is obviously phenomenal, then I-2 has *never* had any
> >evidence or experience of *anything* being instantiated by I-1 or I-3,
> >much less I-2 itself.
>
> this is a very much under appreciated insight into […]

Jud:
The problem lies in dealing with daffy-down-dilly, nice-guy trannies, like
the extraordinarily well-educated, but super-efficiently Jesuitically
brainwashed Antonio NOT realising that it is nix the *senses* that exist - but the
sensitised, sensing, sensorial Señors, Señoras and Señoritas and the objects
with which they sensitively or insensitively share the world.
The whole thing is REALLY […]

Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>>>So all you are claiming to actually prove is that self-existence is a
>>>phenomenal reality …
>>I think I’ve proved a bit more than this.
>>after proving that the I-2, this phenomenological experiencer is real,
>>I-2 conclude that I-2 am not self-instantiating (ie self-creating,
>>self-causing […]

Bernx at aol.com wrote:
> jPolanik at nc.rr.com writes:
>
> phenomenological inquiry needs to assume an adult view of the relation
> between names and the things named: no phenomenon, not even the
> originary phenomenon, tells us its own name; and, hence, the name we
> […]

Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>>>So all you are claiming to actually prove is that self-existence is a
>>>phenomenal reality …
>>I think I’ve proved a bit more than this.
>>after proving that the I-2, this phenomenological experiencer is real,
>>I-2 conclude that I-2 am not self-instantiating (ie self-creating,
>>self-causing […]

In a message dated 11/25/2007 8:00:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,
jPolanik at nc.rr.com writes:
does this remind you of a certain passage from Descartes’ second
meditation? Today, we often think that this encounter with the
malicious demon of supreme cunning an power is nothing but a literary
device to lend credence to Descartes’ excessive doubt. but, if he had
in mind […]

> >>Michael Eldred wrote:
>
>>> >ME: If one has already accepted predicate logic as given, then Axiom 0
>>> >is trivially true. But I do not accept predicate logic as given, nor
>>> >the concept of truth/falsity that pertains to predicate logic. For the
>>> >sake of argument, I […]