occupying every where
October 12th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: occupying every where :: Wow :: 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
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. e., it cannot be the
whole.
Jud:
Good point Michael - thank you. I shall modify my text accordingly. For
space read *stuff.*
Michael:
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 now when since they too depend upon the
‘existence’ of space and time to make sense) never mind occupy anything (what
could such all-stuff-and-nothing-else occupy since there is nothing but
stuff?).
Jud:
Yes. Agreed. I suppose I was trying to explain (rather clumsily) my view
that the cosmos exists in a mode of absolute and completely material form of
*all that there exists* without any *spatial* interstices in between the *bits
of stuff.*
Michael:
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 every when)?
Jud:
For *stuff* to exist it complies (there is no *must* imposed from without)
with the *self-referential material imperative* I am thinking of renaming it
*The Matergic Imperative,* but I am very cautious about employing neologisms -
even though it is not my own and is one which is gaining ground within the
scientific community.
Human stuff moves through the stuff we call oxygen gas or air. For stuff to
exist it must be capable of change - (internally and externally) otherwise -
no cosmos - no stuff. The differentiation is driven by the same imperative
as change in the flora and fauna here on earth - the need to survive in
competition with other forms.
In the case of inanimate matter (even at a quantum level) there is a similar
constant (though painfully slow in human terms) weeding out of types of
particles, substances, elements, chemicals which are less fitted to endure or
persist in the ceaseless concatenation of inter-entitic change that all *stuff*
undergoes during the thermo-dynamic, electro-chemical and quantum exchanges
in the course of constant degradation and renewal that takes place
everywhere. Stuff *moves* because of the conatic variation (the tendency and innate
inclination of a thing to continue to exist and enhance itself ) in the mass
and temperature of the different elements in the *matergic soup,* much the
same as particulates of different viscosity or gas behaves,reacts, changes and
moves in response to temperature and pressure variations in an enclosed
vessel in a lab.
Michael:
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”}).
Tautologic or pleonastic human descriptions are a feature of neurologically active
human and such discourse (while being interesting and germane to humans) is
completely irrelevant to (as we would personify it in human terms) *the brutal
uncaringness of the cosmos.* Concepts like *stuff stuffs* and other plays on
words are equally irrelevant as far as the actuality of a completely
auto-determined, matergic cosmos is concerned.
Jud:
Such niceties of expression are only a *concern* of humans - and pertains
not to a totally disinterested and impartial philosophically unedifiable
cosmos. Any way, I have long believed that if the sense be true then tautologic
statements are sometimes appropriate in situations where disagreement exists
between the discussants for purposes of restatement and emphasis.
Regarding the word *is* (within the theory under discussion) it now ceases
to be an existentialiser manque and emerges as an employable symbol in its
true role as the indicant humans can use for making their human-like
attributions of the cosmos’ entitic workings. The indicant *IS* can therefore be used
in the way it is used now, to point to the existential modality of the cosmos
- not the FACT that it exists.
Mereologically speaking *IS* addresses (points to) such predicational
observation we make about the world and its parts around us, but in a totally
material universe it is freed at last from the imposed primitive function of
existentialising or instantiating entities which have ALWAYS existed.
As all objects are entities that have *become* what the sort of matergic
entity they are FROM matergy, and as there never WAS an existential *first
place* anyway - for matergy has always existed, will always exist, and could not
not exist, therefore our comments about objects are comments about the WAY
objects exist and not the FACT that they exist.
regards
Jud
**************
