|
|
|
|
COSMOS a n d EINAI
|
COSMOS a n d EINAI AND NOTHING
|
1. UNILOGICS I - COSMOS - PART I
2. UNILOGIVS II - COSMOS - PART II
3. DIALOGICS I - COSMOS a n d EINAI - PART I
4. DIALOGICS II - EINAI - PART II
5. DIALOGICS III - EINAI - PART III
-------------------------------------------------------------------
OUR SCIENCE A N D PHILOSOPHY:
A Simple Approximation
by Franz J. T. Lee
(Dedicated to all those, who for the first time in their lives want to learn to act, to think and to excel of, by and for themselves.)
1. UNILOGICS I - COSMOS - PART I
A General Introduction
Many of us do not like to theorize, to philosophize, find this simply a waste of precious time. And, yet we will find no way of liberating, of emancipating ourselves, unless we learn to act, to think and to excel, of, by and for ourselves. Those that are free already, living in a free society, of course, have no problem whatsoever anymore. Nonetheless, as we know, billions do not enjoy this historic privilege.
One of the existential conditions, the sine qua non for thinking, thought, and theory, is philosophy. If we do not even understand our own method in our own "madness", how will we know what we are doing, thinking and surpassing? Towards this understanding and realization, I have suggested the current chat topic. Here it cannot be dealt with in the way that it deserves to be done, but, because we do not have other favourable conditions, nevertheless, directly, in our chats we could discuss some pertinent issues; this is surely not meant to torture, terrify or horrify anybody. This is just a simple, general approximation towards our Science a n d Philosophy. There are no strings attached, without any hurt feelings, who is not interested, is free to delete these notes.
Firstly, what's the reason to discuss this topic? Obviously, if we do not know anything about each other's science and philosophy, how will we relate, communicate, discuss and debate with each other? How would we inter-relate our opinions about world events, terrorism, fascism, globalization? Our discussions would just resemble the non-related world news reports on CNN. Otherwise, it will just be an intellectual hick-hack, a mental brawl, to prove our own ossified points, a display of how perfectly "right" and "correct" our individual brilliant views are; it would be an eternal, dualistic, formal-logical rigmarole, but will not result in a fructiferous chat at all. Of course, beyond doubt, all our previous hundreds of chats are excellent; but an extra, a little philosophic magic touch won't harm anybody.
To begin, here, I will, and can only elucidate very briefly the raison d'être of our scientific, philosophy endeavours. Why a New Science and Philosophy? Are the "old" ones not answering all possible universal questions? Yes, they do. We accept, affirm, identify their discoveries and brilliance; consciously and conscientiously, we study their accumulated ideas, theories, knowledge and wisdom.
But, even they are renewing, renovating, refreshing themselves, have experienced - and still do -- a Renaissance, Reformation, Revolution and Globalization. However, by affirming all these, we still are not yet negating their invaluable findings, that express and reflect realities, the global reality, past, present and future. With an open mind, with scholarly humility and intellectual nobility, we learn, study and investigate them. We learn to know them, including all their relations and non-relations. This is our "point of departure", but we are not blinded, blind-folded, are not myopic about their eternal, absolute "truths".
We notice that this world, in which we live and die, is basically a two-sided universe ("A", "Non-A"). This universe of the fatherland, cum grano salis, is one simple postulate; it has two sides, but it abhors contradictions, relations. It barely can relate its own, two inner, internal parts, this would be a contradiction ("A and Non-A"). It basically is dancing a two-by-two dualistic tango; the dancers, "A" and "Non-A", barely touch each other. Universal Man tries to solve, to resolve all contradictions, to change the world into itself, into "A". Motion, progress, development are the auto-productions, self-reflections of its very own inner "Non-A", that "A" itself, by all Maquiavellian means and Orwellian ends, again wants to reduce to its Unity, to its Rest, to its Peace, to its Rest In Peace.
Sapiently, across the millennia Man has developed his own Science and Philosophy. He operates with mental or intellectual concepts like God, Spirit, Essence, Being, Society, Theology, Religion, Meditation, Philosophy, Idea, Idea of the Idea, Form, Idealism, Theory, Subject, Good, Quality, Peace, Right, Truth, Hope, Charity, White, Civilized, Developed, Capitalism, Reason, Rich, etc. -- all qualities of the one and only universal postulate, of "A", of its Unomnia, of its Hen Kai Pan.
Reluctantly, he developed, produces and will reproduce terms like Cosmos, Matter, Substance, Nature, Science, Physics, Existence, Act, Action, Content, Quantity, natura naturata, natura naturans, Materialism, Practice, Praxis, Object, Bad, Wrong, Lie, Despair, Vice, War, Terror, Black, Barbarism, Under-Developed, Poor, Communism, Evil, etc. -- all quantities of the universal postulate, "A", as its changing, fading "Non-A", of its "negation".
In spite of concrete reality, that reflects other realities too, officially, these dualistic human values are being placed in dualistic contradiction to each other, the one cannot relate to the other, cannot convert itself into the other -- "we'll always have rich and poor", "everything is relative", never can the closed, limited system "A" convert itself completely into its very own "Non-A", into "communism, into terrorism; the status quo, the thesis, whether in formal or dialectical logics can never be "Non-A", can impossibly be "A and Non-A", is forbidden ever to be "Neither A Nor Non-A".
All this, we note, study, accept and understand. We notice the limits and limitations of such a geocentric and heliocentric formal logical and dialectical, introvesial, controversial, universal world outlook. Idealists depart from their single, universal postulate "A", from their "Being", mainly from God, Spirit, Logos, Idea, Affirmation, Society, Essence, etc., and this they call the flow of History, the Highway towards Liberty and Freedom.
Materialists also depart from their "Being", from a single postulate, "A", from Matter, Substance, Praxis, Nature, etc. -- and this they also call the flow of History. In the former case, Matter is a by-product, an excrement of the Spirit; in the latter case, it is in reverse.
In the final analysis, the whole dominant Western Philosophy turns out to be a simple Juliet paradox: "Oh Spirit, oh Spirit, wherefore art thou Spirit? Call thyself by any other name (Matter) and thou shallst sound just as universal!" Thus, just virtually, as virtual reality, Spirit and Matter, Essence and Existence, Society and Nature, Affirmation and Negation, Thesis and Antithesis, Unity and Contradiction, stand in opposition to each other, contradict each other, de facto, they are both dualistic chips of the same universal block.
Philosophically, an apparently third vision appeared, that often is being treated like a step-child of human thought: existentialism and/or nihilism. According to Existentialism, -- Germany, Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers; France, Gabriel Marcel and Jean-Paul Sartre (personalistic), -- Maurice Merleau-Ponty (phenomenology); Spain, José Ortega y Gasset; Russia, Nikolay Berdyayev; Italy, Nicola Abbagnano -- Existence, not Being, is always particular and individual, is "I and Thou", is a specific "mode of Being'; "my" existence, "your" existence, "her/his" existence. Human Existence, not Human Being, "Dasein", "There-Being" is always Existence as being-in-the-world; hence, the emphasis is on Existence; and Existence is "in", is systemic Being-In-The-World!
However, although it claims to oppose idealism, that stresses Consciousness, Spirit, Reason, Idea, or God, in the last analysis, existentialists also just have a singular, idealist postulate, Being, Spirit -- because Existence is just a mode, an appearance form of Being in the World. So, here it just seems that we have traces of a "Third Way", but, its postulate is just another variant of Spirit and Matter. Whether you call the philosophic variants Theism or Atheism, Empiricism or Positivism, Cynicism or Scepticism, Determinism or Indeterminism, Gnosticism or Agnosticism, they all meet each other again in a universal, single, closed, spatial, temporal world system.
However, the most hated philosophic trend, nihilism, has much more realistic "third way" philosophic tenets; its Ancient Greek Father is the Sophist Gorgias, -- who generally is associated with radical scepticism, or even relativism, -- who negated Being thrice, denying (negating) all Human Being (Essence) and all Human Non-Being (Existence), even all human knowledge and all human reality itself:
Nothing exists, or if it does exist it cannot be known, or if it exists and is knowable it cannot be communicated to another.
Thus, Nihil, Nothing, Nothingness, transcends Being and Existence, it is Neither Being Nor Existence; it is something trifferent, can be postulated as Nothing-In-Itself. That's why Gorgias insisted that chariots do not race across the sea.
Across the Dark Ages, in spite of the Inquisition, in various heretic movements, camouflaged as mysticism, especially around the teachings of Meister Eckhart ("God and Nothing is the same.") , clandestinely these nihilist ideas survived, eventually reaching 19th-century Russia as "scepticism" in the writings of N. I. Nadezhdin. During the early years of the reign of Alexander II, he applied them to Aleksandr Pushkin, as also V. Bervi did later in 1858. Finally, in philosophic sado-masochism, he succeeded to wedlock nihilism with scepticism. In literature, Ivan Turgenev, in his famous novel Fathers and Sons (1862) popularized the figure of Bazarov as a typical "nihilist", a kind of Hussein, Castro or bin Laden.
The term itself, like "terrorist" today, became an ideological ad hominem scape-goat attack against the "curse of the time", against all those who were acting and thinking differently than the established global status quo, thus, downgrading all nihilists to crazy, dangerous, dishevelled, untidy, unruly, ragged lumpen-(wo)men who hate the glorious, noble, established tradition and social order. In Russia, it is of interest to note that "nihilism" was precisely associated with "terrorism", and the revolutionary movements against Czarism, eventually turned the tables and accused the very regicide of Alexander II (1881) itself of "terrorism", a similar global phenomenon we could witness concerning the current democratic "anti-terrorism" of the United States.
Here is a general explanation of what nihilism is all about:
"Fundamentally, nihilism represented a philosophy of negation of all forms of aestheticism; it advocated utilitarianism and scientific rationalism. The social sciences and classical philosophical systems were rejected entirely. Nihilism represented a crude form of positivism and materialism, a revolt against the established social order; it negated all authority exercised by the state, by the church, or by the family. It based its belief on nothing but scientific truth; science became the cure-all for social problems. All evils, nihilists believed, derived from a single source - ignorance - which science alone would overcome."
( http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=57221 )
Again, we affirm, study and accept all these interesting nihilist and scepticist ideas, with all their natural, social and historical complications and implications. We include them in our philosophic deliberations. In fact, as Step One, we have become intellectually "enriched", affirming Idealism, Materialism, Existentialism, Nihilism, including their philosophic tinctures and mixtures. Precisely this never ever happens in the global superstructure of being eternally only "correct", "right" or "wrong", or even being just down-right "contradictory".
We go even much further; escaping from the universal, unitary jail of the fatherland, following the sapient advice of Bias of Priene, in true omnia mea mecum porto style, we carry all that we have, with us; we leave the Sphere of Universal Science and Philosophy, of Unilateral Knowledge and Uniform Wisdom. Transversally, trialogically, we postulate the totality of Being and/or Essence of precisely these seemingly different world outlooks, separately, as independent, non-related, identifiable entities, as not being derived from each other; as trifferent postulates: Cosmos, Einai,Nothing, - as Science, Philosophy, Emancipation - as Matter, Spirit, Nihil, -- as Nature, Society, History, - as Affirmation, Negation, Superation, etc.
Before we proceed, just a few words concerning Satz, concerning a Postulate. In order to philosophize, we have to put, to set, to place Something, as premise, as principle. As stated before, the "Presocratics" postulated the arché, hyle, hydor, apeiron, aer, pyr, hen kai pan, sphairos, atomos, etc.; Plato settled the issue with the "idea", and Aristotle elevated it to the "morphé".
Summarizing the above: the crux of the matter is: if we do not think for ourselves, if we do not state our principles, if we do not set our postulates ourselves, then we have to be happy that someone else does this for us, then we have to accept the principles and premises of others, without any rational possibility of ever questioning them or criticizing them at all. And, even if we should try to do so, then, in academic circles, we will never ever be "philosophically correct".
Furthermore, on what scientific and philosophic grounds will we accomplish this, when we do not even have a single principle or postulate whatsoever? Id est: how can we think of, by and for ourselves, when we adopt a pure, receptive, passive, beggar-like intellectual attitude towards the very basics of action, thought and excellence?
Furthermore, how can we think and know with incisive precision those premises which others have postulated void of our intellectual participation or rational contribution, and how can we verify the veracity of our knowledge and thoughts concerning these very theorems which form the basis of Patrian tradition, culture and civilization? About Oriental, Arab, African, South American or Southern Science and Philosophy, we barely know anything at all. In this "spirit", here are our postulates -- separate, independent, non-related, not derived or derivable from each other, affirmative, identifiable, not identical, different, trifferent, etc. :
Very simplified, let's follow the various steps, the train of thought.
STEP 1:
WE POSTULATE:
COSMOS (Green);
EINAI (SPIRIT) (Blue);
NOTHING (Red).
(See illustration above, to the right.)
At a later stage we could postulate more, much more.
Note that we use the tools of language (all genres), of words, speech, symbols, sounds, images, etc. -- but they are just vehicles of action, thought and excellence; they themselves are not these, they themselves do not act, think or excel anything, e.g., they do not think for us. Also they could express anyone of the three: e.g., Act, Thought or Excellence. Acts formulated in Words, giving Orders, are not necessarily identical to Thoughts reflected in Speech, expressing Philosophy. Not even Scientific and Philosophic Terms, even if both use the same concept, Matter, are identical. Also, Prayers directed towards the transcendental Heavenly Father, written in the Holy Bible, express neither Praxis nor Theory, rather a very special divine "relation" to the Far Beyond, Belief.
STEP 2:
COSMOS
At whim, at random, because the "order" of our postulates has very little to do with first, primordial, archaic or original things, in spatial and temporal parameters, rather let's look in a non-related manner at one of our postulates, at Cosmos. Don't forget, it is postulated, it is formulated in language, words, symbols, colours. Hence, although we think it, we try to express it into something alien to itself, in words.
Thus, Cosmos is, is a Thought-Thing, a "Gedankending", is Thought about a Thing, is not the Thing Itself, the Thing-In-Itself, is not the Kantian "Ding-An-Sich". This Thing that we are approximating, as telos, as anticipation, as expectation, we could term as Kosmos, but it is not the Cosmos, that we talk about here. About Kosmos itself, as Gorgias formulated it, all of us, in all probability, do not have the slightest notion. However, as you will see later, at the mension of Nothing, trialogically, we'll challenge it. Furthermore, note that in our Cosmos all the connotations of Being, of Essence, that we mentioned before, are included.
Although we are defining, isolating Cosmos here, it is important to note that for us, Cosmos is not that what is designated in everyday language as "objective reality", "external reality", "physical world", "explicate order", some dualistically separated entity, as something totally excluded from the wonderful "internal or spiritual world" of Man, of the Human Being.
Cosmos acts, We act.
Cosmos acts; we act, we act within Cosmos, Cosmos acts within us. As stated before already, again we stress that our Acts and Action can be expressed, in symbols, in sounds, in words, in language. All these are not thinking, not thought. They are what they are: Acts, Actions, Actitudes, Praxis.
Words and Language are only vehicles, only tools, to express Cosmos. They can also be used for Thinking or Thought, for EINAI; but also for Surpassing, Superating and Transcending, for Nihil, Nada, NOTHING. Also, note here that Nothing does not mean "absence of something": There is nothing in my beer glass. There is nothing in the house. You will disappear into nothingness. Nothing can be done for you. Later this Transcept (not Concept) "Nothing" will be elucidated.
Before we advance to more complex avenues, ventures and adventures, let us focus on the everyday practical and praxical aspects of this philosophical endeavour, that concerns Cosmos.
Simple a n d Complex AND Vague
It is reminiscential to note that in another context, we stated certain philosophic, analytic logical rules (in reality, relations): simple relations and affirmations (levels) are to be explained precisely, id est, simply; complex concatenations and negations (degrees) exist intricately, and they presuppose intellectual difficulties; vague, frontierlike superations (mensions) are excellent to reason, but they demand limitless (apeironic) transcendental efforts.
In brief: What is simple has to be elaborated as such; what is complex has to be explained in a similar manner; what is opaque can only be approached in a vague fashion; mixing up these rules will certainly end up with the superstructural ideological chaos we enjoy nowadays in nearly all our means of social communication, and it can cause fatal mental derangement, which is the essence of Zombization on a world scale.
Having highlighted the above, now we can continue with "affirmative action", giving simple examples and explanations of our unilogical manner of approaching the Cosmos, and therewith Nature at large, our "natural habitat", and later, Praxis and Science.
Cosmos Acts
We remarked previously that Cosmos acts in itself, that Cosmos acts in us, that we act in ourselves, and that we act within Cosmos itself. We also stated that Cosmos can self-reflect its own Action, for example, the mirror reflection of snow-capped Pico Bolivar in its own Andean lagoon below. Whether Pico Bolivar "knows" this, or whether we "see" this with our eyes, or with our mind, are topics for the next part, concerning Negation, Einai.
At least, the Hegelian World Spirit objectivates itself in its own Absolute Mirror, and in this "Vergegenständlichung", in this "Entäusserung", later
called "Entfremdung", Alienation, in this Auto-Reflection of itself, it can cognize, can recognize itself; not as mirror reflection, but as Itself-In-Itself, as Weltgeist-An-Sich.
WE ACT
Similarly, we, -- "human beings", cosmic beings (not existences, not thinking existences), acting beings, -- self-reflect ourselves-in-our-selves and in Cosmos-In-Itself. This is our Relation, our Bezug, our and-Bezug, our Action, our Praxis. In-It-Self is an and-Bezug, it has no extensive relations; it only "relates" itself. We express our Cosmic in-it-self relation, our natural-self-relation, not by means of "work" or "labour" but via our acts, our actions within Cosmos, within Nature. This is the difference between our conception of "Act or Action or Praxis" and the general connotation of "work or labour" used in Marxist or non-Marxist literature and education. The Patrian natural or cosmic relation is dualistic, aggressive, dominating and exploitative; ours is simply a cosmic natural relation-in-it-self, with no pro's or con's about it.
ACT,THOUGHT: EXPRESSED IN WORDS, IN LANGUAGE
Also, we have stated previously, that Doing and Thinking are not identical, and, as such, they cannot be expressed the same way; furthermore, they refer to different things, to different relations. Many Patrian philosophers have underlined the various degrees of Thinking and Thought, for example Kant and Hegel; some have distinguished the various " degrees" of Being, of Consciousness (Bloch), and they did this via the tool Language which is composed of words and other symbolic expressions. Again, formal logically, a Tool is a Tool (Law of Non-Contradiction); a Thought is a Thought, an Idea is an Idea. No Tools are Ideas, and no Thoughts are Tools; but a tool (language) can be used for Action, for Ideas, for Thoughts, to explain divine transcendental events in the Biblical Apocalypse!
Hence, we have to differentiate when we use words and language: that is, to know whether we express Action or Thought or Transcendence. The same language and alphabet are used, but not necessarily the same words and expressions. We cannot use chaotic terms to expound levels (Action), degrees (Thought) and mensions (Excellence). This is the pot-pourri and sancocho we spoke about earlier. We use language to express Action; we use certain words and expressions; we use Unilogic, and our basic terms are Percepts (not Concepts). For example, we use Essence and its verb "is", or we use "and" in Unilogic, expressing Cosmic Action; we do not use Existence, and its verb "exists" or "a n d " in Unilogic, because they pertain to Dialogic, to Diagories, to Concepts, to Ontic Thought, to Einai.
The Relation (Bezug)
Furthermore, concerning Relation (Bezug), which becomes relevant in the next part, just some introductory remarks. The Percepts (not Concepts) which denote the Cosmos at rest, and which describe its intensive motion, its repose, its multiplicity, its poli-universality, are methodologically identified as Unigories (not Categories), and they compound the essence of our Unilogical Method, our Unilogic. Cosmos perceives itself unigorically, unilogically; it is its own Self-Reflection, Selbst-Bezug, Non-Relation.
The Bezug itself has levels (and), degrees (a n d ), and mensions (AND). Also, we know a multiplicity of cosmic non-relations; however, we should note that non-relation denotes precisely what it is, a non-relation; there are all sorts of Relations: uni-relations, hemi-relations, semi-relations, multi-relations, non-relations, etc. Also, it becomes obvious, that for us, Science, essentially, pertains to Acts, Actions and Praxis, not to Work or Labour, although it includes them in its relations, as non-relations. Science is natural, is Natural Science, is Cosmic Science, is Cosmoscience.
(CONTINUES BELOW)
 |
|
COSMOS AND NOTHING
|
EINAI AND NOTHING
|
NOTHING
|
OUR SCIENCE A N D PHILOSOPHY:
A Simple Approximation
by Franz J. T. Lee
2. UNILOGIVS II - COSMOS - PART II
COSMOS a n d EINAI -- Acting a n d Thinking
STEP 3:
E I N A I, EXISTENCE
IDENTIFICATION, AFFIRMATION: EINAI-IN-ITSELF
Kindly note that the diagrams, pictures, frames, symbols and colours, presented here, are just thinking tools, just to visualize what we are explaining; they do not think, do not think for us; they are made by us, are our educational tools, and not vice versa. This scientific and philosophic adventure, in intellectual mode, is by no means boring; it is more exciting than any variety of pan et circenses tourism; hence, consciously, conscientiously, with delight, please board our ship of transexcellence.
Somebody who knows nothing about our Science a n d Philosophy would not understand it; to understand anything at all, (s)he would first have to learn to be her/himself, to act a n d think for her/himself, to be like us. Also, please note that Einai, as Identification, is Einai; however, as Differentiation it exists as Cosmos a n dEinai , is thought as such, but simply written as one word as Einai. This also applies to other Diagories like Existence, Society, Philosophy, Theory, Thought; all of them, all Diagories, have to be thought, have to be "doubly-related-thought".
We will note that all Triagories, e.g., Nature a n d Society AND History , have to be excelled, (not only thought) "triply-related-superated" (in this case, the colour of this triple term should be "white").
Previously, we illustrated the meaning of some of our postulates, of the Sätze "Cosmos" and "and" (as Non-Relation, Non-Bezug); we demonstrated their Essence as Action, not as Existence, not as Thinking. We used words and language, as tools, to express ourselves, to intercommunicate our Acting, Doing and Being. Explained ex post facto: we did not think Cosmos, we were natural, we acted very cosmical.
It is Einai, Society, Philosophy, Theory, Thinking, which have to be thought, to be thought about, which think. In a nutshell, as explained before, we think, we praxizea n d theorize, we scientize a n d philosophize about Existence, about the Diagory, Essencea n d Existence.
Also note, basically, Natural Science does, acts; Social Philosophy thinks, theorizes. Later, we'll demonstrate that Natural Science a n d Social Philosophy, in a differentiating, negating mode, as Cosmos a n d Einai, or, as Einai-In-Itself a n d Einai-For-Itself, acts a n d thinks. Here, unilogically, we are still busy identifying, affirming Einai, explaining what it is; that it is in repose, is acting-in-itself, is self-reflective, is at rest, is Einai-In-Itself. Thereafter, dialogically, we will illustrate how it exists, thinks, moves, as
Einai-In- a n d - For-Itself.
Now, let us continue with the Identification, with the Affirmation of Einai. Thereafter, we will differentiate Einai, as Cosmos a n d Einai. Meanwhile, note, as "human beings" we are, we act, we are natural, we naturalize; however, diagorically, moreover, as "human existences" we exist, we think, we relate, we inter-relate socially, we socialize; we are human beingsa n d existences; it is just as simple as all that; this is the historic, social connotation of praxical a n d theoretical humans. Of course, we are, exist and excel much more; later more about all these.
To relate, to think
In order to relate, to think, to socialize, to negate, at least there must be more than just one to dance the dialogical tango: a minimum of two; two "sides" of the same thing are non-related a n d exist inter-related. And, they have to be two different (contradictory) "sides" else they cannot be non-related, also not inter-related; they have to be direct opposites, counterparts, opuestos, not yet affirmations or negations. Only in relation, direct opposites become Affirmations a n d Negations.
Furthermore, in Dialogics, they have an internal, intensive non-relation or/and an inter-relation, an and-Bezug or/and an a n d - Bezug; if the two elements are related externally, extensively, in a different or trifferent way, then they are connected to other elements but not to themselves, that is, they do not form two sides of the very same thing, of a Gegensatz (in dialectics, called a Contradiction).
Only direct opposites, affirmations a n d negations, can exist inter-related, can form "contradictions", counterpositions, Gegensätze. To arrive at a Gegensatz ("contradiction", counterposition), two Sätze (paradigms, positions) have to be counterpoised, müssen gegengesetzt werden. Hence, to arrive at a Gegensatz, at a Contraposition, at a "Contradiction", at a Theorem, in other words, we firstly have to postulate (setzen) the essential elements of this Gegensatz.
Remember, postulates are not verified or proven at first; like Arché, Atomos, God, Spirit, Being or Matter, all scientists and philosophers first postulate them, and then they apply, verify or disprove them. The real, true life pudding of postulates lies in the eating of it, in its relishing savour and delightful flavour. In more detail, we will discuss such terms like "contradiction", "opposite", "affirmation" or "negation" later.
Einai : Again Sätze, Postulates
Something in itself with no relation to any other thing, which is indifferent to other things, is narcissistic, has a self-relation, an and-Bezug. This very some-thing-in-itself, this Satz, in the most stringent form of precision; as stated before, is not even an Affirmation; it only becomes an Affirmation as such, when it is related to a counterpart, to a Negation, by means of an intensive relation, by an a n d-Bezug.
Hence an indifferent thing and a different thing, -- even a trifferent thing -- although it may be the same thing, are not identical. An indifferent Cosmos is not identical with a different Cosmos (Einai-In-Itself), with a Cosmos interrelated with Einai. This Cosmos exists as a different Cosmos, and not as an indifferent one; the latter is in itself, the former exists as element, as Affirmation within a "contradiction", within a Gegensatz, and it exists different vis-a-vis its Negation within Einai, and it also exists different to an indifferent Cosmos- In-Itself. Note these differentiations very carefully.
In order that the above may be mentally digested, we'll pause here for a while.
----------oOo----------
OUR SCIENCE A N D PHILOSOPHY:
A Simple Approximation
by Franz J. T. Lee
June 3, 2002.
3. DIALOGICS I - COSMOS a n d EINAI - PART I
COSMOS a n d EINAI -- Acting a n d Thinking
To warm up, here are some of our scientific a n d philosophic Different Degrees of Diagories (DDD):
Cosmos a n d Einai;
Essence a n d Existence;
Nature a n d Society;
Science a n d Philosophy;
Praxis a n d Theory;
Acting a n d Thought
Deed a n d Idea;
Percept a n d Concept;
Unilogic a n d Dialogic;
Rest a n d Motion;
Affirmation a n d Negation;
A a n d B.
Action a n d Thought
Now, let us begin to think, to intellectualize!
Like before, as part of our Dialogics, we have to postulate unilogically again; but this time we are dealing with concepts, with ideas, thoughts and theorems.
We are using our magic tools inherited from the Patria, which function par excellence for identification (formal logic) a n d for differentiation (dialectical logic).
Before, we postulated "What is", now we set, we put "That exists", "dass existiert", "que existe", not quidditas, but quodditas, not our Whatness, but our Thatness, not what we are, but "that we exist at all", "dass wir überhaupt existieren".
Let us recollect what we stated in the previous part:
"To relate, to think, to socialize, to negate, at least there must be more than just one to dance the dialogical tango: a minimum of two, two "sides" of the same thing are non-related a n d exist inter-related. And they have to be two different (contradictory) "sides", else they cannot be non-related, also not inter-related; they have to be direct opposites, counterparts, opuestos, not yet affirmations or negations. Only in relation, direct opposites become Affirmations a n d Negations."
Unilogically, strictly speaking, all Sätze are Percepts, but those of Einai ("direct opposites, counterparts, opuestos, not yet affirmations or negations") differ from the Percepts of Cosmos (let's call them contraries, that are not even non-related to any possible counterparts or opposites); this will be explained in more detail at a later stage. On a certain cosmic, transitorial level, they form two separate non-related "sides" of a still non-existent thing: the one ONLY acts; the other ONLY self-reflects its own acting; the one is ONLY in-itself (an sich); the other is ONLY for-itself (für sich) They are indifferent to each other, not identical to each other.
Item: they are Sätze, Gedankendinge, Thought-Things; things, objects, that self-reflect themselves, that Cosmos a n d Einai, that Thinking and Thought can inter-relate, can think about; this is precisely why per definitionem we name them Thought-Things. A chair, when we talk about a chair, is a thought-thing; it is not the thing-in-itself. A "Bushman" might call it fire-wood, and use it for cooking; Woody Woodpecker might drill some holes into it, in search for a delicious breakfast; Woody Allen might see it as an utensil for his "world restaurant".
STEP 4
Sätze : Cosmos, a n d , Einai.
It is pertinent to note that setzen, to pose, to put, is exactly what it is. And this is what we are doing, acting now.
In our Unilogic, we postulated : Cosmos, and.
Now, in our Dialogic, firstly, we postulate anew:
Cosmos, a n d, Einai.
We could postulate anything, a zillion things, that we consider scientific or philosophic. Inter alia, as we will see later, the only simple "rules" of postulates are that they are not derived from each other, that they are "in-themselves", that they are self-reflective, that they are indifferent to each other, that they are not identical to each other, that they are non-related, etc.
Why are the postulates of Cosmos and those of Einai "different"?
Already the "different" number of postulates indicates the "difference".
To explain our Method of Postulation, the Omnia Mea Mecum Porto Principle, let us refresh our memory, let's see what we said before with reference to postulates:
"... following the sapient advice of Bias of Priene, in true omnia mea mecum porto style, we carry all that we have, with us; we leave the Sphere of Universal Science and Philosophy, of Unilateral Knowledge and Uniform Wisdom. Transversally, trialogically, we postulate the totality of Being and/or Essence of precisely these seemingly different world outlooks, separately, as independent, non-related, identifiable entities, as not being derived from each other; as trifferent postulates: Cosmos, Einai, Nothing, - as Science, Philosophy, Emancipation - as Matter, Spirit, Nihil, -- as Nature, Society, History, - as Affirmation, Negation, Superation, etc."
"Thus: If we postulate "A", we have no problem, A = A. It is One and All, Unomnia, Hen Kai Pan. "A" is Itself, is nothing else, is not the opposite of anything, does not negate anything, knows nothing else but itself. If we postulate "A", "B" -- that is, two postulates, still A = A, B = B. However, "A" cannot be "B" , and vice versa.
"This means that "B" must be the opposite of "A" in all respects, and vice versa, that "B" cannot be derived from "A", and vice versa. Now, for example, let's postulate "A", this is no problem, but now, how do we get to "B", to the contrary and/or opposite of "A", without any reference, any relation to "A"? Very simple. However, a universal mind, a formal logical "A = A" mind cannot solve or resolve this problem, this existential riddle.
"Bias of Priene, a Wise Man, living more than 2500 years ago, already hacked and cracked this universal, formal-logical programme, with the Omnia Mea Mecum Porto Principle. The only true way to negate, to think anything, is, firstly, to identify it, affirm it, as your own, then, secondly, negating it, to pack it into your bag, together with all that you do, think, know and have, and take it along with you. Only in this way, we can postulate a different, another "B", that has a problem within itself, an "A", that is not a One and All, not an Unomnia, that is Itself and something else, that is the opposite of something, of "A", which it negates, which is part of itself, which, besides itself, it also knows. Well, what a perfect, opposite, independent postulate is "B", in all respects "different" from "A". Thanks to Bias, we succeeded to postulate "B". In this very same way, we can postulate "Cosmos", "Einai". You cannot saw the branch on which you sit, on "A", cannot pull away the carpet from beneath your feet, cannot throw away the very Affirmation of which you are the Negation. Decisive is, in the sense of our More Principle, that "B" is more than "A"."
This is our original, authentic, new Logical Method, that permits us to transcend universes, diverses and triverses. Similarly, later, in Trialogics, we cannot discard the Affirmation (A) and the Negation (B), of which we, the Superation (C), are the Neither Affirmation Nor Negation. This gives us the clue how to postulate "a n d", which is not only not identical to Cosmos or Einai, but also not different from them, hence, it is trifferent, has nothing in common with them. This methodological quiz we'll solve next time.
----------oOo----------
OUR SCIENCE A N D PHILOSOPHY:
A Simple Approximation
by Franz J. T. Lee
June 4, 2002.
4. DIALOGICS II - EINAI - PART II
COSMOS a n d EINAI -- Acting a n d Thinking
WHAT IS EINAI ?
In the previous section, when we quoted the following, what exactly were we saying? What did we do? What were we thinking about?
"To explain our Method of Postulation, the Omnia Mea Mecum Porto Principle, let us refresh our memory, let's see what we said before with reference to postulates:
"... following the sapient advice of Bias of Priene, in true omnia mea mecum porto style, we carry all that we have, with us; we leave the Sphere of Universal Science and Philosophy, of Unilateral Knowledge and Uniform Wisdom. Transversally, trialogically, we postulate the totality of Being and/or Essence of precisely these seemingly different world outlooks, separately, as independent, non-related, identifiable entities, as not being derived from each other; as trifferent postulates: Cosmos, Einai, Nothing, - as Science, Philosophy, Emancipation - as Matter, Spirit, Nihil, -- as Nature, Society, History, - as Affirmation, Negation, Superation, etc."
Obviously, just like how the bourgeois-democratic, capitalist, philosophic Ratio (Reason) in the 18th century, by means of the atomic missiles of Hobbes, Locke, Pascal, Laplace, Diderot, Voltaire, etc., was bombing the obsolete, absolutist, feudal-clerical, divine-catholic Church-State Intellectus (Verstand, including its Sensatio) to a myriad of earthly fragments, with the above transhistoric, transversal statement we bid heliocentric Ratio a transgalactic, emancipatory farewell.
Refreshing and refreshening our memory, remember, this is how we identified, defined "A", Cosmos, Being, Essence:
"Thus: If we postulate "A", we have no problem, A = A. It is One and All, Unomnia, Hen Kai Pan. "A" is Itself, is nothing else, is not the opposite of anything, does not negate anything, knows nothing else but itself.
If we postulate "A", "B" -- that is, two postulates, still A = A, B = B. However, "A" cannot be "B" , and vice versa.
"This means that "B" must be the opposite of "A" in all respects, and vice versa, that "B" cannot be derived from "A", and vice versa." And, this is how we affirmed, postulated "B", Einai, Existence: Only in this way, we can postulate a different, another "B", that has a problem within itself, an "A", that is not a One and All, not an Unomnia, that is Itself and something else, that is the opposite of something, of "A", which it negates, which is part of itself, which, besides itself, it also knows. Well, what a perfect, opposite, independent postulate is "B", in all respects "different" from "A". Thanks to Bias, we succeeded to postulate "B". In this very same way, we can postulate "Cosmos", "Einai". You cannot saw the branch on which you sit, on "A", cannot pull away the carpet from beneath your feet, cannot throw away the very Affirmation of which you are the Negation. Decisive is, in the sense of our More Principle, that "B" is more than "A"."
Finally, this is how we explained our Logical Method:
"Bias of Priene, a Wise Man, living more than 2500 years ago, already hacked and cracked this universal, formal-logical programme, with the Omnia Mea Mecum Porto Principle. The only true way to negate, to think anything, is, firstly, to identify it, affirm it, as your own, then, secondly, negating it, to pack it into your bag, together with all that you do, think, know and have, and take it along with you."
Dialogics: Identifying the Non-Relation a n d Relation
In the same methodological mode as explained before, identified, affirmed,
Dialogics is: Unilogics a n d Dialogics;
"a n d" is: "and" a n d "a n d".
At first, again let us take a microscopic, a minimum glance, a cellular glimpse, at our Cosmos Sätze: Cosmos, and; to illustrate the existential difference between "and" and "a n d", for the sake of understanding -- because these tools are in our Bias' Bag -- we'll also explain their meaning in formal-logical, spatial and/or temporal terms or parameters; as Rest a n d Motion, as Ruhe
a n d Bewegung.
Again: as Unilogical Amplified Revision: Cosmos, and
Cosmos is in-it-self; it is indifferent to "and"; and vice versa. Both are in-themselves, are only as themselves, however, they are indifferent to each other, non-related. They are Contraries, are, inter alia, not yet probable, possible Opposites and/or Affirmations, and/or Negations.
"And" itself only self-reflects itself as a Non-Relation. In this sense, it is a Bezug, a Relation, but a specific one, a Non-Relation. Such relations, like non-relations or semi-relations also are, and many others exist and transcend. In our Bias' Bag -- which contains all the contents of the Pandora, Cassandra, and even Schrödinger Boxes -- , we have zillions, a myriad of formal-logical non-relations, called contradictions or/and non-contradictions, even spatial and temporal non-relations; more, even those at rest, in motion, at 1000 miles per hour; moreover, "spacetime" and "timespace" intrasolar systemic, universal non-relations; furthermore, also dialectical non-relations concerning "unity and contradiction of opposites", bi-cameral, uni-nary, bi-nary and tri-nary non-relations, uni-mensional, di-mensional, tri-mensional, uni-versal non-relations, etc.
For example, in Formal Logic, dualism expresses a type of non-relation: A = A; A is only non-related to itself; in the same way, Non-A = Non-A; but A can never be identical to Non-A, and vice versa; A has a sort of formal-logical non-relation to Non-A. Our multifarious non-relations include this type, apply it in the Patria where it is true and necessary, for example, the (or no) "bourgeois-democratic, capitalist 'reign of terror'" (A) can (n)ever be (or become) a "non-bourgeois-democratic, capitalist 'reign of terror'" (Non-A).
In other words, there will never ever be an Al Quaeda or a bin Laden terror, there will always just be a one and only bourgeois-democratic, capitalist terror. In our essays, debates and chats many times for scientific and philosophic purposes we have applied this Formal Logic to the word; but, no patriot, no capitalist fan, no system lover, wants to learn, to see, to know the truth of their very own formal logic, of their "thinking", to understand how it functions.
Now, let us take a telescopic, a maximum glance, a bird's eye view, at these Sätze: Cosmos, a n d .
If we postulate "Cosmos" as a Satz, as a fundamental Percept, and if we postulate " and " also as a Satz, then logically the one is not contained in the other, neither as a part, nor as a whole. Otherwise, postulating becomes nonsense, an intellectual farce.
The two of them are independent entities all in themselves. They have no relation to each other; however, as explained before, they have a non-relation.
Learning How To Identify
Note: They postulate themselves. WE postulate, WE act, WE affirm. Cosmos postulates, Cosmos acts, Cosmos affirms. Cosmos to be itself, cannot be "and" ; and vice versa. Now, there we have two entities in themselves, not identical to each other, but identical in themselves. This is what They, Cosmos and "and", postulate, what WE postulate. We are not cosmic outsiders, we are not independent, special extraterrestrial, extracosmic creatures, we are in, inside the Cosmic Picture, therein, within, essentially we act, naturally we are, socially in perverted form we toil, labour or work -- also Cosmos itself does all these things; but this is another special patrian non-relation, another non-historic story, to be dealt with later.
Neither Cosmos nor We can act, can postulate, can "setzen", if we do not postulate the "Satz" itself also; We cannot act, if we do not postulate the Act, if we cannot even identify or affirm the Act.
This "setting the Satz" , this self-determination, self-identification, self-reflection, self-affirmation, this Act is "and" .
Hence, We postulate alongside Cosmos, also "and".
TOWARDS EINAI
Now, let us pack all these in our magic Bias' Bag, and off we go. When we postulate the component elements of Einai, obviously our Cosmos Sätze are already logically included -- don't forget, as explained before:
Einai exists as: Cosmos a n d Einai.
And " a n d " exists as: "and" a n d "a n d".
Someone may ask: Dialogically, why do we postulate more, a third Satz? The simple questioning answer is: "Why not?" We need it to think about Thought-Things, about Thought Itself and about their non-relations and relations. This is what Einai, Society, Thoughts, Theory and Ideas are all about, to THINK; and not to convert them into gods, into a feared "In The Beginning Was The Word", into a terrifying "Idea of the Idea", into a divine horror chamber of the "Summum Bonum", into an awful "Absolute Idea", into language and words, that is, into secret social monstrosities, that exclusively only the global elitist intelligentsia can understand and about which only they could write erudite philosophic treatises, text books and "best sellers".
Can we postulate a third Einai-Satz? "a n d"? And if so, how can it be "different" from the other two, from Cosmos and from Einai? To answer this complex question, some complicated mental activity and energy are necessary. Follow us, step by step, mentally trying to grasp our logical argument in philosophic mode.
This difference is really the key to this Aporie, to this Janus-headed Paradox, because it seems that now we are finding ourselves hopelessly on the horns of a dilemma, not of a unilemma, also not of a trilemma. Surely, formal-logicians would now throw the towel towards the bull, into the philosophic arena. How do we solve this difference puzzle, especially in a universal world of two-by-two; of good or bad, of left or right, of god or devil? In reality, of one-by-one! It seems that the Triple Negation of Cosmos of Gorgias is already haunting us. No, not yet - his nihilist principle will come to our rescue in Trialogics, in the Mension of Nothing vis-a-vis God. There we will scare the hell out of all oppressive, earthly-created, state-directed divinities.
Continuing identifying "a n d"
The truth of the matter is that we have solved the problem already: "a n d " as Satz is different than either Cosmos or Einai. Trialogically, we could say: It is neither Cosmos nor Einai, it is in-it-self, as "a n d ", it is not indifferent to both of them. It is the difference, the relation, the inter-relation itself. This "not indifferent" differentiates it from its component element "and"; as "and" a n d "a n d", it is different from either Cosmos or Einai, it is difference itself. We need not postulate "and"; it is part of "a n d", otherwise, without it, "a n d" cannot be different.
It encompasses "Cosmos" and "Einai" and Itself as "a n d", as Difference, as Thought, that is, as Action a n d Thought. However, to be a Satz, to be a Postulate -- as "and" -- it is indifferent to Cosmos or Einai" as Entities-In-Themselves. As Gegensatz, as Counter-Postulate, as:
"and" a n d "a n d ",
in short, as "a n d" .
It exists differently, is not indifferrent to them, on the contrary, it relates, inter-relates them, a quality that neither Cosmos nor Einai as Postulates possess. For these very reasons, Cosmos as Satz, or "Einai" as Satz, or "a n d" as Satz, all have a non-relation to each other. As Counter-Postulates, as Gegensätze, both Einai and "a n d" are related, are related to each other, also to their own dialogical Satz, Cosmos (Einai-In-Itself); as such, they change the unilogical indifference of Cosmos into dialogical difference, they relate its non-relations, thus differentiating, altering Cosmos itself, also therewith also themselves. Therefore Cosmos in Unilogics as Satz (Postulate), and Cosmos in Dialogics as Gegensatz (Counter-Postulate) are two different Cosmoi; the unilogical one is indifferent, the dialogical Cosmos is different.
Therewith we have identified, affirmed, differentiated and negated Einai, in general, illustrating its acting a n d thinking abilities and capacities. Now, we have some faint idea what our essence a n d existence, nature a n d society, science a n d philosophy, praxis a n d theory, action a n d thought are all about.
OUR SCIENCE A N D PHILOSOPHY:
A Simple Approximation
by Franz J. T. Lee
11TH June, 2002
5. DIALOGICS III - EINAI - PART III
HOW DOES EINAI EXIST?
Gegensatz, Counterposition, Contradiction
We counterpoise, gegensetzen :
Cosmos a n d Einai.
EINAI : Picking Up The Threads
Let us scrutinize the major deliberations arrived at in the previous section and carefully expiscate the essential elements of the Gegensatz, to avoid any possible expostulations with reference to Einai, to Thought in general. To arrive at our Gegensatz, at first, we explained its essential elements, Cosmos, and, Einai, and thereafter, we existentially counterposed our Gegensatz : Cosmos a n d Einai.
We also indicated that "Cosmos, and, Einai " are Sätze, postulates, positions. Furthermore, we stated that "Cosmos a n d Einai" exists as a Gegensatz, contrapostulate, counterposition, "contradiction". It is worthwhile to recollect that Sätze concern Acts, and that the Gegensatz refers to Thought. Also, we should not forget that Sätze express Acts in Words or Language, which we speak, and with which we intercommunicate ourselves, with which we affirm our cosmic acts, our Praxis.
A Satz has a Minimum Level, Cosmos, and this can be acted or expressed in zillions of ways, depending on the specific level on which we act, or on which we express ourselves in word and deed. Cosmos is the Minimum, is the Satz. The rest -- Essence, Object, Matter, Nature or Praxis -- are other Cosmic Levels, are Words which express these minimal Acts, but they also are these very Acts. Words and Language are not extra-cosmic things, they are as cosmic as Acts themselves; even they are Acts, Tools.
Einai naturally has Sätze: Cosmos, and, Einai . A n d, Einai socially exists as a Gegensatz : Cosmos a n d Einai.
The only way to relate non-related acts with related thoughts, is to bring them into existence, is to inter-relate them. In other words, we inter-relate (a n d) our Sätze within our Gegensatz: (Cosmos, and, Einai) a n d
(Cosmos a n d Einai).
We arrive at: E i n a i-in- a n d -for-it-self; or,
Einai-in-itself a n d Einai-for-itself, or simply, Einai.
Similarly, we arrive at the following:
Affirmation a n d Negation;
Level a n d Degree;
Minimum a n d Maximum;
Satz a n d Gegensatz;
Cosmos a n d Einai.
EINAI : We T H I N K, We EXIST.
Until now, it follows that we have discussed, that we thought Einai-In-Itself, its Sätze, its Percepts; in a nut-shell, we expounded the Affirmation of Einai, i.e., Einai-In-Itself.
As next philosophic step, we have to advance to analyze the following:
Einai-for-It-self, that is, Einai-in-itself a n d Einai-for-Itself.
Now, we ask for super concentration, precise thinking!
Einai-in-itself has a non-relation to Einai-for-itself;
Einai-for-itself exists related to Einai-in-itself;
Einai-in-itself a n d Einai-for-itself , as Satz a n d Gegensatz, extensively, is non-related a n d exists related to Nothing, Nothing transcends, excels, superates Neither Einai-in-itself Nor Einai-for-itself.
THIS IS WRITTEN AS FOLLOWS:
Cosmos a n d Einai AND Nothing, or,
Einai-in-itself a n d Einai-for-itself AND Nothing.
Just remember, Cosmos and Einai is Einai-in-itself, and,
Cosmos a n d Einai exists as Einai-in- a n d -for-itself.
We are learning to act in, a n d to think for ourselves!
This, our Trialogics, we'll discuss next.
(CONTINUES OF PHILOSOPHY II)
|
|
|
|
|
 |
