Cheers I appreciate your warning - warning are always telling - but here you seem to have miss-read my statement, and read your own interpretation of it - so that you might address a pet peeve - that I have little traffic in - personally, I mistrust the term "all " (inclusive of every possible, or conceivable mode) - because we know that there are all ways the possibility of anomalies - which produce "Cases" (explanations why the exception does not disprove the rule) . But that is another discussion as I have already stated nothing is not a vacuum - it is not a space - it refers to an absence - and the condition of the field/ space - e.g. eventless-ness - being without occurrence - a point to focus upon which might allow us to organize the whole - in its absence we tend to focus on those things that normally do not come to our attention - or withdraw into ourselves and seek refuge in the chatter of the mind
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:16 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > In a message dated 8/17/12 11:11:55 PM, [email protected] writes: > > > > nothing is not a thing it is not a space - it is a condition n whose > > presence we might begin to notice things - such as silence > > > Beware of Heideggerian lines like this. Heidegger's head defied a law of > physics: It produced sonorities in a vacuum. As did his girlfriend Hannah > Arendt. "All thinking is in words," she said. "Speechless thought cannot > exist." > Imagine how impoverished her thinking was. It takes a mind that destitute > to embrace Heidegger. > > -- S a u l O s t r o w *Critical Voices* 21STREETPROJECTS 162 West 21 St NYC, NY 10011 [email protected]
