Heidegger

In a message dated 21/10/2008 21:49:14 GMT Standard Time, Bernx at aol.com
writes:

In a message dated 10/21/2008 1:57:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
GEVANS613 at aol.com writes:

[Joe (new)]:
the issue then and now concerns the mode of instantiation that an object of
thought has. ‘there exists an even prime number’ demonstrates that there is a
use of ‘exists’ that does not mean ‘exists as matergy’. thus, your
linguistic frame of reference is inadequate to encompass a psycho-philosophical
inquiry into what there is and the *way* that a particular existent is — what
traditionally is called its mode of existence.

Gentlemen: Joe and Jud:
The even prime is possible because “zero” was added to numbers and
calculation by the Arabs who derived it from Indian and Hindu practice. Greek and
Roman numbers did not use zero but started with no. one. Thus the space between
zero (nothing) and One were precluded. With the zero finally in place No. Two
assumed position as prime and without which modern math and physics would
have been impossible. The irony in this was that from Anaximander to Aristotle
a concept of protohyle was included and which represents a state of nothing
or “pure being” which also is no-thing. Things begin with No. One. For
Aristotle “no thing” represented pure potential because it was a “something” that
was empty nothing. His concept of entelecheia could not proceed without
including nothing or “zero.” He derived this notion from Anaximander’s concept of
apieron (that which is without boundary) and by which The Boundless is, as
such, a state of nothing. or pure being. This notion is included in Genesis 1
as the first day of creation. That the Greeks and then the Romans did not
include no-thing in their mathematics is thus astounding. Perhaps Jud counts in
the zero-less old Roman style. This was also the case with C.G. Jung who
considered the unus mundus as the acme of unity of conflicting opposites. He thus
precluded nothing or pure being as the agency of pure potential. Zo, vot
else ist noo? Check out Columbia Encyc:
_http://plus.aol.com/aol/reference/zero/zero?flv=1_  http://plus.aol.com/aol/reference/zero/z…)
Bernard

Jud:
Thanks for the interesting historical background stuff on zero Bernard. As a
matter of fact I count like anybody else - I simply use the numerical symbols
as the useful fictions they are. For the greater part of my life, in my
own businesses, (clubs, hotel,etc.,) selling up-market homes, and latterly
working up to retirement for the North West of England Chamber of Commerce and
Industry as a business advisor and liaison officer, I always tried to relate
any figures I dealt with to real objects, or real pound notes which were
exchangeable for objects or services (something the banks should have done)
which is what counting was all about before the abstraction away from the
real world objects (the camel droppings or decapitated heads, or whatever the
Arabs used to count - and probably still count) to the (so-called)
arithmetical objects began back in God knows when..

Cheers,

Jud

Posted on Sunday, October 26th, 2008 at 6:01 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback