I don't get this guy, from where does he justify his point? Can anyone give facts about this, principally I would be interested in some facts here, as they are soaringly lacking, and this accounts for the shabby nature of my understanding about this important matter.
Why is a capacity or potency essentially separate from its properties or substantive characteristics? Facts here please! Please answer this question factually and we must , factually, move from every part of the factuality found proximaly and for the most part by the horizon form which we will (in fact) take our approaches (and sorties) to all and every peak of a possible factual answer, and not so stray into existential facticity.
He claims, apparently with the facts in steady gaze, and in mind, nothing changes in the knife, wrong, this I claim is a fact, i.e, his wrongness,(that might be looked upon as a value, but I hold the fact value distinction is primordially fixed in a kind of wonderful factual ground, so, principally it is not a value judgment, but a fact), our evaluation of the knife (factually) and its possibilities changed, now we speak of new properties (now facts about the knife), after all, we are the ones who invented the demarcation (I mean, of course, that we factually, as a fact, invented it), 'property' in the first damn place.
Anyways, if anyone can understand my crude objection (in fact, it is rather crude), which is totally complete and feels repulsed (factually repulsed!) by 'great thinkers' like de Landa, who are really good talkers (factually this is demonstrable, and we know this is a fact by the fact of his many acolytes and listeners globe-wide and everywhere on the net, and that's no barzelletta)..., if anyone can explain this (useing facts and an objective method if you please) I will be shocked (actually and factually shocked!). But I mean what is the strength of such claims (of course, here, I am referring to the factual strength, and no other), where do they get any power to convince in the world, seems empty in the extreme, astoundingly and unbelievably. But does she (here I take the liberty of noticing, that factually, gender markers are faulty and so have no potency and so I conclude that they are factually impotent and so interchangeable without doing violence to the facts of a pronoun based sign that refers with undiminished strength, in this case to de Landa) mean thinking about it like this is supposed to be more useful for us, if false (factually)?