Heidegger

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 or […]

allen scult wrote:
>>Michael Eldred wrote:
>>>one has to go back to the originary phenomena. There it can be
>>>seen that the subject/predicate structure breaks down and that the
>>>question, “what?”, let alone the question, “what am I?”, again
>>>becomes malleable, full of mystery.
>>the question ‘what am I?’ never ceased to be full […]

Cologne 25-Nov-2007
Joseph Polanik schrieb Sat, 24 Nov 2007 10:21:22 -0500:
> Axiom 0: On Choosing a Root Predicate
>
> >>JP: here you seem to be suggesting that one is obligated to use as a root
>
> >>predicate every predicate ever used as a root predicate by anyone.
>
> >ME: I don’t care one wit about […]

Cologne 25-Nov-2007
Joseph Polanik schrieb Sat, 24 Nov 2007 08:44:35 -0500:
> Axiom 0: The Relationship between Axiom and Translation
>
> >>JP: I do not deny that this originary phenomenon is ontologically prior
> to
> >>the language used to describe it. I am, however, saying that the
> >>language used to describe this originary phenomenon […]

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 or self-originating). first there is no evidence of this;
and, secondly, […]

>>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 have shown that even allowing Axiom […]

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
—–Original Message—–
From: Michael Eldred
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 16:50:47
To:”Heidegger, An-archos”
Subject: “color vision” - falsely attributed quote
Cologne 24-Nov-2007
Fred Welfare chaney525 schrieb Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:15:22 -0800 (PST):
> Micheal Eldred said (I think)
ME: No I didn’t. You are quoting Joe Polanik.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art […]

 http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-po…

In a message dated 11/24/2007 2:48:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,
crifasian at gmail.com writes:
Is it possible that the meta-phenomenal “reality” behind “me” is the
same as the one behind “you” (i.e., that our consciousnesses are
actually two aspects of one meta-phenomenal reality)? If not, how do you
know that it’s not? And if so, then wouldn’t that completely undermine
the […]

Joseph Polanik wrote:
> there are many theories as to the nature of ontological realities.
> first, of course, there are those who simply say that there are no such
> realities.
>
> among those who say that there is an I-3 ‘within’ the human individual,
> there are at least three different viewpoints as to its nature. there
> […]