CPI vs OD
November 5th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: No related posts
Cologne 05-Nov-2007
Joseph Polanik schrieb Sat, 03 Nov 2007 21:19:28 -0500:
> The Confession of Partial Ignorance vs The Ontological Difference
>
> now that the ontological difference, OD, has been clarified somewhat;
> perhaps, this is a good time to revisit the confession of partial
> ignorance, CPI, in relation to the OD. as previous noted, the CPI is:
>
> I know that I am; but, not what I am.
>
> Michael Eldred has recently described the OD this way:
>
> >ME: No. But we can only “see” electrons AS the abstract semi-integer
> >solutions to a second-order partial differential equation; that is
> >their IDEA which also exists within this mathematical casting of being
> >– just as we can only see a being as something through the IDEA of
> >something. The IDEA is not a subjective “idea” in our tiny little
> >heads, nor is it “objectively” out there in the world, but is
> >subject-object, i.e. in between in the ONTOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE. And that
> >is the great deficiency of thinking in the modern age — that it moves
> >obliviously back and forth between subject and object, remaining always
> >clueless about what is in between.
>
> it seems to me that the simple, undeniable CPI shows that there is no
> the ontological difference in between subject and object — until it is
> put in between ‘that’ and ‘what’.
ME: Then you are claiming that the CPI (not to be confused with the Consumer
Price Index) has no presuppositions. It is supposed to be so plain and
immediately obvious as to be “undeniable”. Formulating a “vs.” or opposition
between an axiomatic CPI and the OD suggests that one can do very well
without the latter — but that is where philosophy since Plato has been
located. Analytical and British Empiricist philosophy have not “progressed”
beyond philosophy since Plato; they have become oblivious to it.
> to choose a noun to designate what I am, I would have to compare what I
> know about the referent of ‘I’ to the definitions of the available nouns
> (mind, soul, spirit, body, body/mind unity, being, etc.) and conclude I
> am a … [choice of noun here].
ME: What is presupposed in saying “I”? What is presupposed in asking “What am
I”? Why should this “I” be somewhat at all? To say “I” is already to
presuppose a kind of self-awareness, i.e. an awareness of… bent back, or
re-flected, upon itself. To ask what I am presupposes that I am somewhat and
leaves out of consideration whether I am, instead, somewho. Therefore the CPI
cannot be taken as a starting-point for thinking. There are presuppositions
which must first be thought through, namely, the ontological nature of the
“I” and of whatness, both in itself and vis-à-vis whoness.
The ontological difference, by contrast, is not an undeniable axiom, nor an
unquestioned presuppostion, but rather only comes to light by questioning the
presuppositions for all that is given to awareness, and that involves the
world shaping up and showing itself AS such-and-such. The interposed AS is
the question.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact at t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
