Heidegger

13/10/2008 _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?

Jud (Previously)
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.

Bernard:
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: (new)
I theorise universal *big bangs* as actually localised *little bangs* which
are produced continuously and repetitively throughout the macro-cosmos. The
Macro-Cosmos or the Matergic apeiron (to borrow a Anaximanderian term) can be
called a *system,* because although I envisage it as a infinite whole in the
sense of the Parmenidean *One* which mereologically can be
approached/viewed/ conceived of either as a singularity or a unity of individuate complexes,
it is systematised by its self-governing existential imperative (that which is
incapable of change is incapable of existing.) Thus there is much to-ing and
fro-ing and interaction betwixt the different matergic complexities. BTW
because I mention the *real* philosophers Anaximander and Parmenides please
don’t think I am *appealing to authority* (something which I normally abhor) or
start a long message pointing out any divergences you may spot betwixt my
ontology and theirs. There ARE elements of their thinking that I match with
theirs, but there are also many aspects of their thinking that are the products of
a historical age which lacked the insights provided by modern science.

Still, for all that from the few extant fragments of Anaximander’s work, we
learn that he believed an endless, unlimited mass (apeiron), subject to
neither old age nor decay, which perpetually yields fresh materials from which
everything which we can perceive is derived. Of course we can argue about his
notion of neither old age nor decay, by which he is referring to some basic
unchanging *building blocks* which conflicts with my concept of

*no changee - no existee*

and apart from that he does not go into much further detail.

Jud (Previously)
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?

Jud:
Because the mass is not a static mass, areas of it comprise of differing
matergic *viscosity, density, temperature and mass etc. Consider a sheet of
steel. Why does it go rusty in one place on its surface before another? It is
because metallurgically it is not exactly the same throughout, its molecular
constitution varies, often due to the cooling process. Therefore the intensity
of the processes of electrolysis work in different time-scales. Cosmically
all matter is composed of these intrinsic and extrinsic interacting existential
differences and undergoes constant internal as well as external change.

Bernard:
Your notion of “infinite” is without material substance.

Jud:
Eh? Exactly why? I have no *notion* of *infinite* - an abstraction that
for me does not exist. it is merely an adjective I use to refer to the
existential actuality of the unlimited matergic expanse.

Bernard:
and is the way Aristotle understood it as materia prima following the notion
of Anaximander’s definition of *apeiron* 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 old fashioned trannies.

Jud:
I have a great respect for the pre-Socratics, who had more real philosophy
in their little fingers than all the trannie child-molesters that followed
put together and acted as the midwives for the birth of the greatest evil ever
visited upon mankind.

Jud: (previously)
*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: “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”

Jud:
Yes, I knew that. Bernard:

Bernard:
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 matergy to a hungry, heavenly Father *in
absconditus.*

Jud:
Well said

sincerely,

Jud

**************

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