Heidegger

In a message dated 20/02/2008 11:53:57 GMT Standard Time, jPolanik at nc.rr.com
writes:

Joe: There Is There No Definition of ‘Holeron.’

Jud:
That is because there is no such word as *holeron* - sorry I got the
spelling wrong - it is actually *heteron.*
(I confused it with the word *holon* something with which I am heavily
engaged in my dissertation)
So I now render as *heteronic* in adjectival form.

I apologise Joe. But unfortunately my spelling error does not make any
difference to *that which is not* or *non-being* or *nothing* to their
non-function as others or a a differences in relation to *all the exes that are exes*
or *all non-exes* that are not X-worthy axiom-wise.

HETERON - from the Greek heteros meaning [the] different or other. Compare
*hetero* [sexual] etc.

The two main Platonic and Parmenidean contestations which emerge in Plato’s
Sophist are:
1.
The same thing can both be and not be (256a) (Plato)
2.
Nonbeing is not the opposite of being (257b) (Parmenides)
But first - some mentions of *heteron* to establish its meaning
_http://www.pacitti.org/books_00199105.htm_
 http://www.pacitti.org/books_00199105.ht…)

A different spirit [pneuma heteron]. This is the obvious meaning of
[heteron] in distinction from [allon] as seen in Ac 4:12; Ga 1:6f. But this
distinction in nature or kind is not always to be insisted on. A different gospel
[euaggelion heteron]. Similar use of [heteron].
_http://www.ccel.org/ccel/robertson_at/wp_2cor.xii.html_
 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/robertson_at/wp…)

The adjective or substantive hETERON also means “other” or “another,”
indicating a difference or contrast, or, as for ALLOS, it can merely indicate
reference to the next item in a list (e. g., 1 Cor. 15:40).

When used together in the same sentence or thought pattern, as here in Gal.
1:6-7, their use may be entirely synonymous and interchangeable, often
providing color to an otherwise redundant use of either one (BGD). This is the
case, for example, in Aristotle (Politics 4.1291b19ff.; 1300b20ff.), and for
Paul in 1 Cor. 10:29; 12:8-10; 15:39-41.

Aristotle, Politics 4.1300b20ff., offers an interesting example which
combines both these terms, enumeration, and other conjunctions in setting out a
list. In this case he begins a list of eight items by enumerating “one,” then
uses “another [ALLO]” instead of two, followed by “another [hETERON]” for three,
he enumerates items four and five, and then for six through eight he changes
again: “and beside these” for six; “and” for seven; “and beside all of
these” for eight.

The use by Paul of the two synonymously in 1 Cor. 10:29 to refer to the
other person’s conscience is telling: “I mean not your own conscience, but the
other ones [hETEROU]; for why is my freedom judged by another’s [ALLHS]
conscience?” The word order is even the same as in Gal. 1:6-7, which may indicate a
common idiomatic order or Paul’s preferred idiom (cf. 1 Cor.
14:17-19; Lk. 22:58-59; but opposite order in Matt. 16:14; Acts 14:12; Heb.
11:35-36), however, against this is possibly is the order in 2 Cor. 11:4,
although three items are listed there. Paul’s interchangeable usage provides an
important example, as the various gifts ( 1 Cor. 12:8-10) or kinds of bodies
(15:39-41) are being listed with no discrimination of priority intended in
his variation from ALLOS to hETEROS; in fact, in
12:8-10 it is the equal value of the different gifts that are clearly in
view, for if the use of ALLOS for some and hETEROS for others was considered of
lexical significance here, then Paul’s entire point would collapse.

_http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/1999-April/004810.html_
 http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gre…)

By far the best Platonic use account of the use of the heteron in *The
Sophist* can be found here:
_http://www.pacitti.org/books_00199105.htm_
 http://www.pacitti.org/books_00199105.ht…)

>Jud:
>If you insist upon retaining the sleazy heteron - 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.

Jud:
No, I reject [1] and [2] as unacceptable heterons for nothing is NOT
different fro something as it does not exist to be different from nothing, something
or anything. If nothing DID exist as a heteron, it would not be a heteron
to an X or something for it would then be a something itself as a putative X.

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].
Jud:
See above, and by way of mitigation for my spelling error, it is merely the
Greek word for *different or other* which I have *dug up* [and
mis-labelled.]
The words different/difference/other have not changed, and neither has the
inaddmissable role of inexistent *nothing* as an *other* of an existent X

Joe:
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.

Jud:
I do not consider *is* and *exists* to be analoguous. *is* is too much of a
slippery ontological character to admit into any
philosophical or scientific axiom. You have talent and brains I beg you to
use them in other more constructive ways.

Joe:
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*.

Jud:
*Take your pick or mix and match ontological choices will not work as an
ontological axiom.
People (philosophers of bother complexions) already KNOW the ontological
score - to render *entity, thing, object, that which is but is incorporeal etc
as X
is a waste of time - it will not ADD anything to that which is already known
and has been argued about since Plato and Parmenides time.

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.

Jud:
Those that speak in that way or think that way are few - but whoever they
are they already know what they mean

Cheers,

Jud

Posted on Wednesday, February 20th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback