CPI vs OD
November 19th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: No related posts
Cologne 14-Nov-2007
Joseph Polanik schrieb Tue, 13 Nov 2007 06:56:05 -0500:
> Michael Eldred wrote:
>
> >Joseph Polanik
>
> >>the CPI is not an axiom. it is a statement. as a starting point, it is
> >>prior to the OD — which is not a starting point.
>
> >ME: I used the word “axiom” following your own usage. When you
> >postulate a purportedly undeniable starting-point, you are positing an
> >axiom, aren’t you?
>
> I postulate Axiom 0 as an axiom because it is the starting point for a
> process of deductive reasoning in the manner in which the postulates of
> geometry are the starting point for a process of deductive reasoning.
>
> the CPI is neither an axiom in that sense, nor a starting point in that
> sense; and, any opposition you see between the CPI and the OD on that
> basis is completely spurious.
>
> both are findings discovered by bringing to light — by uncovering what
> was previously covered up; and, both can become a base from which
> further philosophical inquiry may proceed. although ’starting point’ is
> the more traditional term, I personally prefer the term ‘turning point’
> — something may conclude and something else may start at each ‘turn’.
>
> in this sense, both the CPI and the OD are turning points.
>
> in any case, having found the OD, the process of uncovering, of bringing
> to light, can continue until the CPI is found.
>
> the CPI is ontologically prior to the OD, which refers to beings AS
> beings, because it is prior to the designation of ‘being’ as the root
> predicate.
>
> do you deny that the CPI is ontologically prior to the OD?
>
ME: Your Confession of Partial Ignorance, “I know that I am; but not what I
am.”, is an assertion, on the one hand, and a private confession on your
part, on the other. (Insofar as it is merely a private opinion, it is removed
from any philosophical inquiry.) You take it as a starting-point for an
inquiry. As such a starting-point, it is prior to everything that follows in
the inquiry, but that does not make it ontologically prior to what is
unearthed subsequently in such an inquiry. To question the “I” and the “am”
in “I am” and to question the “what” in “what I am” lead straight into an
ontological inquiry, because “am”, as a conjugation of being (a “joining
together” of “am” and “being”), can only be clarified and brought to its
concept (a _logos_ of _to on_ or onto-logy) by clarifying the sense(s) of
“being”. The assertive part of your CPI, “that I am”, then turns entirely
into an ontological question, because it becomes apparent that the sense of
the “to be” of “I am”, although thoroughly familiar and “known”, is not
known. Ontologically prior is therefore being itself, its sense, on the basis
of which the sense of “I am” could be clarified. Since “I” is a being in a
definite conjugation or “yoking together” with being, to say in an
ontologically well-grounded way what “I am” means, is an aspect of the OD,
which refers to beings in their being, and therefore, in particular, to the
“I” in its “I am”.
I doubt, however, that the “I” in its being can be brought to its concept
prior to clarifying the being of other beings, namely, the being of beings of
which “I” am aware in “my” world. Why? Because being aware that I am is
already a reflection on being aware — I am aware of being aware of — and
this bending of awareness back (re-flection) onto itself is the I in its
first determination.
To sum up, the CPI is not an ontological statement at all, but at most only
the initiation to an ontology, and clarifying it ontologically invokes
equiprimordially the OD, because the OD covers inter alia the “I” in its
being. In other words, the OD comes to light whenever the being of a being is
ontologically clarified, and the clarification of “I” in its being is only an
aspect of bringing the OD to light.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact at t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
