Metaphysician Undercover

The Heidegger analogy is not helping me. The distinction between "ready" and "present" is teleological, the ready being useful, the present simply bei...

So this, I think would be the most difficult part, the initial accommodation. That is where the logical trick I requested would be required. Maybe Way...

I just can't understand your use of "bottomlessness" Moliere. How is bottomlessness related to the act of negation?

I disagree with the vise versa part. X is defined as Western values and Western narrative, and then Y is defined as not-X. The vise versa doesn't work...

So let's say that we do have a radio receiver of that sort, and it's common to us all but the majority of people, (the normal people), condition thems...

I can't understand this form of classification. It classifies a bunch of dissimilar and unrelated things together in the same classification, as not-X...

I opt for "regularly". I tend to think that this sort of thing happens all the time, and it is a significant aspect of existence, but since it doesn't...

I'm having a hard time, felt what? The moment I saw the absurd, or the moment I saw multiplicity? Or is multiplicity absurd for you? I don't know if I...

But how does "ontology hits bottomlessness" make any sense? Suppose ontology progresses indefinitely, as "bottomlessness" implies. When would it "hit"...

What does "global south" mean in your usage. Can you define this?

Geese, like other birds can carry diseases contagious to humans. And they shit everywhere.

I strongly agree. That's why there is sayings like "truth is stranger than fiction". I believe it has something to do with the variety of possibility....

I already gave good reasons why it isn't a case of premature judgement.

I don't see the relevance. If the seed fails in producing a tree it demonstrates its own faultiness.

Where's the difficulty? Think of it as I said, when ontology hits (the bottom of) bottomlessness, there it finds truth. In other words, ontology never...

Thanks for that description. The point though, is that what is demonstrated is its own faultiness. You know, when a method fails in its capacity to re...

I believe it is important to the topic of this thread, to understand how intention guides attention, and knowledge is dependent on attention. So 'the ...

Try the following. How would one ever "hit groundlessness"? Adorno claims that Heidegger hits bottomlessness, but that really doesn't make sense. One ...

This really depends on how you would define "know". Unlike some epistemologists, I don't think that truth is a requirement for "knowledge". Plato, in ...

Sorry Mww, but I still don't get it. Whether or not a person understands how one received a wound, or even what it means to be wounded, is irrelevant ...

Yes, i think it's very complicated, and the trend for us is to simplify. We even have evolved in a way which has us sensing a very small bit of realit...

I believe that. But Heidegger is quite difficult. Good luck!

At the time of injury, I would never be thinking about ontology. What's your point here? Speak for yourself. Some of us are interested in truth. That'...

I agree, bottomlessness, and groundlessness have pretty much the same meaning for me. "Bottomlessness" however is more illustrative, and better suited...

What I am saying is that the idea that there is "a thing" which is perceived is a faulty idea. So, I'm saying that all these supposed "things", forest...

At the base level, there's nothing wrong with eating roadkill.

No. I would say that a perception is unique to the being that perceives it. This is due to a multitude of factors, unique spatial temporal perspective...

I appreciate and admire efforts.

But what is it that you call "the wallaby"? Is it the colour? No, because then the dogs wouldn't be seeing the wallaby. Is it the shape? Why would you...

We'll just have to disagree then. I think what he says, is that this form of ontology, absolutism, hits bottomlessness, and that is the truth. He is n...

This is similar to the idea that knowledge progresses through a determination of what is impossible. In a world of possibility, the impossible constit...

This is very consistent with my reading, except I read bottomlessness itself as untruth. It's like an infinite regress of indeterminacy. The accusatio...

I don't think we can make this conclusion. The flow of time itself appears to be continuous, as a continuous activity, but consider what is happening....

Trying to blow my cover? As anyone who dabbles knows, anything to do with agriculture is work, and I've done enough of it.

Protension is the way that we relate to the future, and retention is the way that we relate to the past. As being at the present, we recognize a signi...

This is a very fine example of the faulty deterministic perspective derived from the overextension of Newton's law. In reality, the activities of the ...

Actually I have a degree in ag. But, since I would have preferred to be a brain surgeon, and didn't make it, I've found that messing with the words is...

There's a very big difference between winter squash and summer squash. One grows in the heat of the summer, and the other grows under the snow in the ...

I agree with this to an extent. Acknowledgement of the bottomlessness is what touches the truth, but it is an acknowledgement of bottomlessness as unt...

One of the many reasons why relativity theory ought to be rejected as false and misleading, it assumes there is no difference between being at rest, a...

Electrify it, I think you'll like that. Make beautiful sound without knowing how to play.

Now you are assuming a force without acceleration, a force which is counteracting gravity to create an equilibrium. That negates the point of your arg...

I don't think the conclusions you make here are logical. First, if "they are entirely abstract and an invention of the human thinking mind", then we c...

The question is, why do you assume that absent the effects of sensation, there are "objects", plural. Division into distinct objects is a part of sens...

If the set really was "only the elements", then the empty set would be impossible. No elements, no set.

I think we had this discussion before. In general relativity, gravity is not a force.

I think that by asking about "things", "objects", you've already assumed more than what is granted by the premise of "the in itself", or "the One". Yo...

So you say, but as I observed yesterday: My disagreement is with things you repeat over and over, which are false. Since these are repeated statements...

Maple syrup always makes sense. Next time, try using turnips. Rutabagas are cattle feed and taste like wood, fresh turnips are sweet and delicious.

From Wikipedia: Be aware of the mysterious "Triangle of U".