Heidegger

In a message dated 11/10/2008
_michael at sandwich-de-sign.co.uk_ (mailto:michael@sandwich-de-sign.co.uk)
writes:
Jud states:
Jud:
There are no *matergically unoccupied spaces.*
MichaelP:
Jud, for spaces to be “occupied” or “unoccupied” by ’stuff’ (a shorter
version of your “matergy”, “material/energetic/force-fieldy objects”,
‘constellations of matergy’, etc), the whole must be other than the stuff, because the
stuff merely occupies or doesn’t occupy *something*, i. […]

Joe wrote:
>so, we still don’t know what a human is.
Well, let’s say we’re unique, because humans are the only species that
cook their food But more serious, the question “what is a human ?”
is first of all a question of philosophical antropology. Heidegger is quite
clear that his investigation doesn’t concern antropology, psychology or
biology […]

Cologne 11-Oct-2008
Jan Straathof schrieb Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:04:56 +0100:
> Hi Michael, you wrote:
>
> >The ultra-low short-term US interest rates helped to keep the economic
> >interplay going after the bursting of the dot-com bubble, but they also
> >opened the door to the risky, imprudent strategy of borrowing short and
> >lending/investing long.
>
> JS: Risky yes, […]

In a message dated 10/11/2008 10:39:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
GEVANS613 at aol.com writes:
To an eliminativist materialist everything that exists, exists as some form
of a specific conglomerate of ever-changing matergy. Therefore, for me
EVERYTHING in the cosmos and beyond (into what folk call *infinity) is comprised of
matergy. There are no *matergically unoccupied spaces.*
Are you thereby refuting […]

Jud states:
> There are no *matergically unoccupied spaces.*
Jud, for spaces to be “occupied” or “unoccupied” by ’stuff’ (a shorter
version of your “mattergy”, “material/energetic/force-fieldy objects”,
‘constellations of mattergy’, etc), the whole must be other than the stuff,
because the stuff merely occupies or doesn’t occupy *something*, i.e., it
cannot be the whole. For there to be nothing […]

In my last post I mangled the citation. I was quoting Kant:
Joseph Polanik wrote:
> I’m planning another post to address your complete agreement with and/or
> misunderstanding of what Kant said about ‘exists’ as a predicate;
> meanwhile, let’s consider some of his remarks that are more to the
> point:
>
> “I am conscious of myself, neither […]

Antonio Rossin wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>Antonio Rossin wrote:
>>> maybe one or both of you — or everybody else — can help me
>>>understand.
>>> When I mind about such sentences like “cogito ergo sum”,
>>> “I think therefore I am”, “I experience therefore I exist”, I
>>> remember of another renown sentence, […]

11/10/2008 _jPolanik at nc.rr.com_ (mailto:jPolanik@nc.rr.com) writes:
[Joe]:
You seem to be defending the claim that nothing that is lacks properties by
which one may say what it is.
Jud:
Some more thinking by me to expand on the above. To an eliminativist
materialist everything that exists, exists as some form of a […]

it seems that there is considerable controversy concerning the
possibility of claims of partial ignorance; particularly, *the* CPI: I
know that I am; but, not what I am.
unfortunately, recent discussion has focused on claims that such
statements are or are not meaningful; claims that such statements are or
are not grammatical; and, the relation, if any, between the […]

Hi Michael, you wrote:
>The ultra-low short-term US interest rates helped to keep the economic
>interplay going after the bursting of the dot-com bubble, but they also
>opened the door to the risky, imprudent strategy of borrowing short and
>lending/investing long.
Risky yes, but imprundent no. In principle there is nothing imprudent
in “going short”, on the contrary, shorting is […]