Heidegger

Cologne 16-Jan-2008

Joseph Polanik schrieb Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:11:47 -0500:

> Axiom 2
>
> Michael Eldred wrote:
>
> >Joseph Polanik
>
> >>JP: obviously, you hold fast to the idea that classifying the
> >>*syntactic* form of a statement as ‘absolute’ (an archaic, 19th
> >>century designation) transfers a quality of ‘absolute significance’ to
> >>the semantic analysis of meaning.
>
> >ME: Obviously you are confusing two different things. I am using
> >”absolute” in the sense of “absolute signification” as in the OED.
>
> >>JP: does that mean that when you say ‘I am’ you speak with absolute
> >>significance? when I say ‘I am’ I speak with agnostic significance. If
> >>someone else said ‘I am’ how would we know whether he spoke with
> >>absolute significance or agnostic significance?
>
> >ME: I am not married to the term “absolute” as used by the OED. If you
> >like, you can call this simplest usage of ‘to be’ its signification
> >plain and simple, synonymous with ‘to exist’ in everyday language
> >(philosophical usage may then make a distinction between these two
> >terms).
>
> JP: the problem with philosophical usage is not so much that it doesn’t
> consistently distinguish ‘existence’ and ‘being’; but, that it doesn’t
> consistently make the distinction between the root predicate and a root
> predicate type — reality vs a reality type; existence vs a mode of
> existence; or, being vs a mode of being.
>
> >If you want to “speak with *agnostic* significance” when proclaiming
> >”I am” in your CPI, then how on earth could you ever claim “I *know*
> >that I am” in the first part of this so-called CPI if now, as you
> >profess, you don’t know, i.e. claim to be “agnostic”?
>
> in the Claim of Partial Ignorance, I assert ‘I know that I am; but, not
> what I am’.

ME: The CPI is a sham. What’s needed is a CTI, a Confession of Total
Ignorance.

>
> JP: in the first part, I speak with certainty. I know that I am because
> self-asserted self-awareness is self-verifying.
>
> in the second part, I admit not knowing; hence, I am agnostic as to the
> reality *type* that I have.
>
> when you say ‘I am’ what mode of being do you claim for yourself; or, do
> you say ‘I am’ without making a claim as to your mode of being?
>
> >>[JP]: you wouldn’t want to say that a tree exists in the same sense
> >>that a number exists, would you?
>
> >[ME]: Indeed, I “wouldn’t want to say that a tree exists in the same
> >sense that a number exists”.
>
> okay; then, you’ve just conceeded Axiom 2: not every reality has the
> same reality type; or, schematically, not every [root predicate] has the
> same [root predicate]-type
>

ME: I don’t mix reality with existence. I do ontology, not resology. In doing
so, I take on Aristotle’s original formulation for ontology, the inquiry into
_to on haei on_ “beings insofar as they are beings”, as amended through the
history of philosophy by the greats.

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

Posted on Wednesday, January 16th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback