Heidegger

In a message dated 10/12/2008 9:00:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
GEVANS613 at aol.com writes:

_Bernx at aol.com_ (mailto:Bernx@aol.com) writes:

Jud (Previously)
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.*

Bernard:
Are you thereby refuting a concept of entropy and the second law of
thermodynamics? Do you equally include your matergy as a property of dark matter and
antimatter or for (sic) that matter the matter of a black hole? In all you
apparently preclude the notion of “unoccupied space” including the ontological
state of Death. Then, of course, you must embrace the crowded matergy of an
afterlife and its bi-polar reality of Heaven and Hell. E’ vero? Bernard

Jud:
The fallacy of entropy is a misapplied when it refers to an open system. It
may refer to an imagined closed Mickey Mouse, music of the spheres, or
clockwork orange system of the early cosmologists, but it does not lead to chaos
with regard to a matergic system, for a matergic system is not a closed system
- it is infinite and endlessly and boundlessly changing

Yes, Jud, that is true if indeed the Universe at large is in fact an open
system. The contradiction here is that if it were such a “system” it would be
reckoned as in continuous generation rather than in a notion of a “Big Bang”
moment of origin. Anything called “open” would be without a calculated beginning
and end. Neither could it be called a “system” which is self-predicated as
“closed.”

Jud: As far as the second law of thermodynamics is concerned, this too only
refers to an isolated system, that does not interact with its surrounding
matergic systems. Yes, I include ANY kind of matter as matergy with regard to my
open system, although the matter-energy quotient will vary within the
different matergic types.

Bernard: Yes, but how to predlude “surrounding matergic systems” as a pars
pro toto included as parts in a greater closed system? Your notion of “infinite”
is without material substance and is the way Aristotle understood it as
materia prima following the notion of Anaximander’s definition of *apieron* or “the
boundless” and which is equivalent to your notion of the infinite. Don’t tell
me you are falling back and not eliminating these olf fashioned trannies.

Jud: *Death and *life* are primitive reifications - that all abstractions
lack a physical denotatum. Living and dead bodies exist though not for long in
their organic modalities - dust to dust and all that…
Bernard: But, old chap, that is based on a notion of beginning and end.
What’s the matter before beginning and after end?

Jud: Bottom line E non vero! *Oh Death where is thy sting
ting-al-ling? (Ditty sung in trenches of WW! - I have forgotten the rest of the lines

Bernard: The “ditty” was also sung in the _King James Bible_
 http://kingjbible.com/1_corinthians/15.h…) :
“O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” The question
is rhetorical insofar as Death qua the sting and the grave are believed
overcome by the Ressurection and eternal (infinite?) life. More likely Tommy, Dougboy
and Le Bosch post-ditty were screaming “Mamma,” “Mum” and “Mutter” as they
were mowed down and sang of the beginning because the end was near and they were
giving up their metergy to a hungry, heavenly Father *in absconditus.*
sincerely;
Bernard

..

____________________________________

Posted on Sunday, October 19th, 2008 at 6:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback