CPI vs OD
November 20th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: No related posts
Michael Eldred wrote:
>Joseph Polanik schrieb
>>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.)
the part of the CPI that is an admission or confession of ignorance is
a subjective report of my state of knowledge; and, as such, has the
philosophical significance of a report of a sighting of a white crow: it
refutes the claim that all crows are black.
your claim is that I always already know that I am a being; and, I claim
I don’t know that to be true.
>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.
I fully agree that what is ontologically prior is often discovered
subsequent to one’s ’starting’ point; but, you don’t seem to understand
that I am claiming that this principle also applies to you.
having found the OD (possibly after a lengthy process of clarification,
uncovering and/or unlearning), any viewpoint or philosophy that is
subsequently developed proceeds from that ’starting’ point; but, that is
merely a *turning point* in the course of your thinking; and, it may or
may not be the last such turning point. in any philosophical journey of
discovery there could be a series of ’starting’ points — which is why
I prefer the phrase ‘turning point’ although ’starting point’ is the
traditional term.
in any event, if, after discovering the OD, you were to continue the
process of clarification and subsequently discovered the CPI, the
chronological quirk of *subsequent* discovery does not preclude the
possibility that the CPI is ontologically *prior* to the OD.
my analysis that the CPI is, in fact, ontologically prior to the OD has
*nothing* to do with the chronological order of discovery. my analysis
is based entirely on the relationship between the two principles —
irregardless of the order in which they are uncovered by particular
individuals.
you say:
>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”.
>… 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.
it may well be that “the clarification of ‘I’ in its being is only an
aspect of bringing the OD to light”; but, this shows that the CPI is
ontologically prior to the OD; for, it assumes that the referent of ‘I’
is a being; which, in turn assumes that ‘being’ has been chosen as the
root predicate of the terminology in which the OD is expressed.
the CPI is a statement of one’s knowledge and ignorance prior to the
*choice* of a root predicate. the OD assumes that choice is already
made.
would you not agree that ignorance is ontologically prior to the
knowledge that dispels it?
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
