Heidegger

Cologne 29-Dec-2007

Joseph Polanik schrieb Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:04:56 -0500:

> Axiom 0 and its Translation.
>
> 1: The Map is Not the Territory
>
> >[ME]: I don’t have to make up a rule of grammar, but merely point out
> >that the simplest sentence consists of a subject and something said
> >about that subject, i.e. a predicate. … Of “all that is” one can
> >simply say, “It is”.
>
> JP: Axiom 0 is defined as a specific symbolic formula: (E P)(x)(Px).
>
> no axiomatic system is about anything until a translation (aka a model)
> is mounted onto the symbology; and, the translation I have mounted onto
> this formula is:
>
> there is a predicate, P, such that, for any x that is, x is P.
>
> as with any axiomatic system, alternate translations are possible — so
> long as the underlying formulae are unchanged. that is the point of my
> parable concerning quantum balto-dynamics. it is no better nor any worse
> than standard quantum chromodynamics because all the math is kept
> exactly the same even though all the verbiage is changed completely.
>
> in other words, Axiom 0 is the formula, not the translation. the map
> (translation) is not the territory (formula).
>
> Michael, sometimes it seems that you are advocating an alternate
> translation of Axiom 0; and, as long as the underlying formula is
> unchanged, we can discuss the relative merits of various translations;
> but, at other times is appears that you are advocating ‘translations’
> that could only be mapped to an alternate formula.
>
> unfortunately, you prefer not to specify what that alternate formula is;
> and, thus, your ‘translations’ constitute ungrounded verbiage — maps
> without territories.
>
> I will start this restatement of issues in dispute with issues that seem
> to me to concern alternate translations of Axiom 0 — with the ultimate
> hope that we might soon identify any formulae presupposed by (or merely
> consistent with) your verbiage.

ME: We started this debate with a question concerning the ontological
difference which, you said, you did not understand. My efforts have been
directed at showing that your axiomatic approach, which apparently aims at
an exhaustive taxonomy of reality types, will never lead to any
understanding of the ontological difference because, in the first place, the
question concerning being per se must come into view. By demolishing your
Axiom 0, which pretends to open a question concerning a universal predicate
(P) for all that is, I have shown that the predicate is always already
predicated, namely, that, for all that is, one can say, it is (absolute
signification of the verb ‘to be’). One can then either admit that one does
not know philosophically what this ‘is’ means, or one can brush this
question aside as trivial nonsense, and then proceed with one’s argument,
deductions, propositions, etc. etc.

Since I am well versed in axiomatic model theory from my mathematics studies
(in the theory of mathematical theories using category theory as pioneered
by Prof. Max Kelly at Sydney University), I know that this approach is
useless for philosophy. The very dimension of philosophy, and the
ontological difference in particular, remains invisible for such an
approach. Only with an inkling for the question concerning being can one
even begin to faintly and waveringly make out what the greats in philosophy,
such as Plato and Aristotle, Hegel and Heidegger, have in view. Otherwise,
Plato’s phrase, _gigantomachia peri taes ousias_ (”a battle of giants over
being”) remains a bit of quaint literary hyperbolae which a smug, modern,
rational, clear-thinking ‘philosopher’ smiles at and passes over.

That’s the fork in the road. The views to be seen on each of these two roads
are very different. Worlds apart.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact at t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred (c)_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

Posted on Saturday, December 29th, 2007 at 9:55 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback