Heidegger

Is There No Definition of ‘Holeron’

GEVANS613 at aol.com wrote:

>Hi Joe:

>You recent reply was shorn of most of my text in which my point about
>the lack of viability of your presently formulated root predicate is
>explained. Please try to retain your interlocutor’s text in full (it
>was not an overlong piece anyway] as anyone reading a message denuded
>of most of its original imput finds it difficult and time-conuming to
>read, for it entails digging previous posts out of the archive. Here is
>the original into which I have inserted you latest comments in the
>appropriate positions.

I only quote as much of the prior post as I’m replying to.

>Joe:
>Axiom 0: (E P)(x)(Px)

>translation:

>there is a predicate, P, such that: for any x that is, x is P.

>Jud:
>an axiom is a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof;
>its truth is assumed to be self-evident.
>(Quoted from the WordWeb online dictionary)

>Joe:
>that’s correct. since Axiom 0 is implicit within predicate logic,

>Jud:
>It may appear to be implicit within predicate logic, but surely
>predicate logic only works if the propostional elements are valid and
>applicable to the real world - a world where the meaning of any *X* that
>is - really is?*

>Joe:
>it can not be proven true without creating a circularity; and, it can
>not be proven false without creating a holeron or some other absurdity.
>thus, it must be taken as an Axiom.

>Jud:
>If you insist upon retaining the sleazy holeron - NOT NOTHING,

Ah, I now see where some of the confusion lies. consider two claims:

[1]: Nothing is.
[2]: Something is not nothing.

You seem to be saying that both of [1] and [2] are holerons. I only
classify [1] as objectionable.

perhaps you found an old greek noun lying around and decided to
reanimate it. I have no problem with that; but, I think we need to
clarify its definition. what is your source for the definition of
‘holeron’? one of us has redefined the word and we need to figure out
whether you’ve redefined ‘holeron’ to include [2] as a holeron; or,
whether I have redefined ‘holeron’ to exclude [2].

>you will expose your axiom to the same amount of ridicule that the
>figure of fun Plato suffers from for his injudicious use of the
>absurdity in his battle with Parmenides. If it was agreed by all that:
>*Any X that is - REALLY is,* there would be no need for an axiom - it
>would merely be a bromide, a trite remark, or an a priori given like:
>*cherries grow on trees*. You have snugly nested the holeronic cuckoo
>*not nothing* in the longer version of your propositional nidus
>Furthermore, if the ambiguous *is, * which you include in your axiom,
>is meant to signfy *exists,* then you must be aware by now that exactly
>what is,/ *an X that is*/ or what is not, or what exists or what does
>not exist is a subject of considerable ontological disagreement.

>How for example can it work as a general axiom or proposition and not be
>susceptible of proof or disproof, when those that hold the faith that
>/*Being/* is (or even that the so-called /*question of *Being*/ cannot
>be asked in an intelligent manner, ( you have seen how your probing
>questions have been stonewalled ) and they cannot even prove such
>metaphysicalities as being X-worthy? They are not even in agreement
>amongst themselves as to whether *Being* can even be the subject of
>certain sentences, and deny and even The Philosopher of Nazism himself
>resists such concepts as *Being* from being awarded the existential
>denonational sobriquet X?

>Joe:
>if you can find a way to deny Axiom 0 without creating an absurdity;
>then, kindly tell us about it.

>Jud:
>But I have no need to Joe - you have already neatly accomplished that
>yourself by introducing the holeron */not nothing/* and choosing to
>employ the ambiguous, obfuscational *is* in place of *exists.*

I use ‘is’ in place of ‘exists’ because it expresses the linguistic
analogue of the quantum superposition of values.

consider the dynamic property of spin that subatomic particles have.
when measured, it always has one definite value from a set of two
possible values; but, in between measurements it has no definite value
because it ‘is’ in the bizarre state where it simultaneously has both
values — spin up and spin down at the same time. this is the quantum
superposition of values.

saying ‘I am’ asserts the root predicate *as a variable* because there
are several potential values, none of which are actual until chosen by a
language user *as a root predicate*.

depending on choice of root predicate various individuals might say:

‘I am’ = ‘I am a being’
‘I am’ = ‘I am a reality’
‘I am’ = ‘I am an existent’

but they can all affirm ‘I am’. they can all affirm the potentia that
they then actualize differently.

Joe

–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
 http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@

Posted on Wednesday, February 20th, 2008 at 11:55 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback