occupying every where
October 12th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Wow :: occupying every where :: why is this post not showing up on the list (not that many of you will be interested) :: I know your not all interested in this kind of thing- but here is a trascribe taken from an interview with Walter Schellenberg two weeks before his death
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 other than stuff (which is what
I think you mean, every where stuff), it cannot be said to “occupy” since to
“occupy” something (to be an occupant) means there is something else (the
occupying environment, the ‘occupyee’, so to speak, which itself cannot be
stuff too). For there to be nothing other than stuff then that stuff cannot
be anywhere or anytime at all (it could not even be nowhere and nowhen since
they too depend upon the ‘existence’ of space and time to make sense)
nevermind occupy anything (what could such all-stuff-and-nothing-else occupy
since there is nothing but stuff?).
Another question which could arise: if there is absolutely nothing but
stuff, why and how does it differentiate its self by its self (into bits and
bobs, into this and that, parts and wholes, farts and holes, inklings and
thinklings, etc)? If there is nothing but stuff (”occupying” ‘everywhere’)
how could any stuff-thing move (there being nothing against which such
movement could be registered, since stuff is all and everywhere and
everywhen)?
But there’s something else: because one must assume that for an eliminatist
to say that there is only stuff (and nothing else), and to use the “is” in
that statement as your “exist” and to define that which “exists” as stuff,
means that your statement is at least circular if not redundant (basically,
stuff stuffs, which is hardly philosophically edifying (as you have oft
pointed out with respect to some of Heidegger’s pronouncements {”time
times”}).
What say you? No insults please, otherwise total ignoring follows.
regards
michaelP
