Thanks, Standard23. That is very encouraging.
I wonder now how Heidegger differs from Transcendental Thomism, and why.
It’s a Kantianism with an infinite speculative horizon, as far as I understand it.
But I must bow out now to those who can handle Heidegger.
Tried to read Being and Time once and didn’t get too far with it. Ich bin ein poseur. 
OK, you’re a caveman. Imagine a tree. Take it down. Cut off the branches. Leave it, accidentally, on a hill. Now, as it strarts rolling down, and you cry out some primitive form of ‘heureka!’ can you see the essence change?
You cut off a slice, hollow it out in the middle and stick another, thinner treebranch tthrough it. Well, you get it. I think technology is all about transessentialism. Maybe that’s what Heidegger meant, though, when he said that scientific thought and philosophical thought are mutually exclusive.
In that case, nothing, as in the question ‘why not nothing instead of something?’ does not presuppose a world.
Yes, or my (and I think young Degger’s) understanding thereof. But that is inseparable from it’s counterpart nothing (or my understanding thereof as I asked the question). The two are two sides of the same coin. I think this is the dualistic thought the yogi’s and Buddha’s try to warn the western thinker about, by the way.
Almost to the contrary, rather the terror of being underwhelmed by it - against it’s seemingly more logical, but absurdly non existing, counterpart nothing, existence becomes terrifyingly insubstantial. We start to doubt all of existence’s properties, we become completely sceptical of things that are obviously right in front of us. Things lose all meaning and coherence, and we are driven to find an underlying principle that could prove to us that existence actually has the ability ro exist.
For Heidegger, this came into ‘dwelling’, ‘wohnen’, etc. For me it came after I bit into the vertebrae of a chicken at a tapas bar and was confronted with the valueless of llife, in ‘doorcreeeren’ - (create-on-through)
in seeing myself as, like the chicken, not existent as an entity with an essence, but only a phase in a general process of transsubstantiation.
In participating in this process actively I exist, in not doing so I do not exist. That was really the ooutcome for me - that, in the terrified wonder about existence, I actually did not exist.
For Heidegger, too, a radical revaluation of the concept ‘existence’ was necessary to solve his problem. This is what he is doing in Sein und Zeit, and what he has accomplished in his lectures on ‘wohnen’ He actually said that if people do not ‘wohn’ (dwell, build, cultivate), they do not really exist. That ‘wohnen,’ for humans, is synonymous with existing.
Yes it does, as it is an abstract concept (as is “something”). There is no thing-in-itself, nor is there a nothing-in-itself.
There may also be a connection with his idea of authenticity (authentic living versus inauthentic living).
I’m not sure but will have a peek into Transcendental Thomism.
As for the horizon (of the interpretation of the meaning of Being), there’s a little tension between the facts that:
Hermeneutical methodology seems ill at ease with absolute boundaries.
Either way, I respect Heidegger’s awareness that all accounts of existence should stay within a temporal perspective.
What about mathematicals (Euclidean)? Aren’t they unmoving?
And if mathematicals, why not metaphysicals?
Let me introduce the scholastic word: “qua” – literally “as”. It 's used to mean, say a pen, used to hold a door open, is not holding the door open “qua” pen (ink wriitng instrument), but “qua” object the right size to jam the door.
Now as for the tree cut down, first it’s no longer alive, so it’s timber or lumber and not a tree. (It’s interesting that Aristotle’s word for “matter” in speaking about the form/matter distinction, is “hyle”, or “lumber”.) Next, as a material, the lumber has uses which have nothing to do with the tree’s ability to grow – they don’t properly have to do with the tree by it’s essence. Even if the tree is alive when fashioned (like making a tunnel out of a Sequoia), it is not fashioned “qua” tree, but despite it.
Does this answer you?
Mathematics is just a system invented by humans. As long as humans don’t change it, it won’t be “moving”. But it has no correspondence with reality.
Latin grammar does not “move”, either.
The study of wisdom?
There is no study of wisdom.
Wisdom is “applied knowledge” and not the academic kind.
All that is worth learning is gained through experience. All that is not worth learning is stored in books.
Who said “You can’t create something from 'nothing?”.
We use and take for granted things created from nothing everyday.
We listen to the radio, watch television, talk on the phone, use the internet, satellite dishes…
It is not the material substances screwed in their proper place that make these types of communication possible. It is the “airwaves” these signals travel along which brings us the information. Airwaves which are quite literally “unseen”. Without the unseen forces, these types of communication would be impossible regardless of how sophisticated the physical machinery.
If mathematicals had NO correspondence with reality, they would be useless.
Some math systems may not be usable, but neither do they try to model reality.
(…My Latin grammar does not “move” you?) 
The idea that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line has no correspondence to reality? Are you sure you have thought this through? If so, could you provide a way to change this law to show the arbitrariness of the mathematical system?
Obviously, otherwise there would be no reason for the qestion.
Your response to the question ‘why is there not nothing’ amounts to ‘that is not a valid question, because there is no nothing’.
I would guess Heideggers idea of authenthic living was his idea of wohnen under construction.
Application, yes; correspondence, no, as in reality, there are no points or straight lines. This also answers myrealname’s question.
No, you don’t seem to understand. There “is” a nothing, but it is not in the world. It is not-being-not-in-the-world (not not-being-in-itself).
actually the shortest distance between two points is zero… simply fold space…
-Imp
Yes, dude, I know, this is Heidegger solution to his own question about why there isn’t only nothing, which he considers the one fundamental philosophical question.
Correspondence is an ill chosen word then - a straight line corrsponds to, say, a pencil line drawn between two tots on a piece of paper.
And even if the physical world will hardly ever flawlessly correspond to geometry, it’s structures always correspond to mathematical principles. What you said was that mathematics are invented by man. That is simply not true - it’s laws are discovered by man, and cannot be altered without altering the physical universe.
The language of mathematics, for example using x for an unknown, is arbitrary. But that is not mathematics. Mathematics is another word for necessity.
Clever… but… no. There would only be one point then. The process of folding space would in Euclidean math amount to bridging the straight line.
but we don’t exist in euclidean space…
-Imp