Taxonomy
December 1st, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: tree of be-ing :: Taxonomy :: To Be or Not to Be … a Taxonomy of All that Is :: tree of be-ing
Michael Eldred wrote:
>Joseph Polanik
>>Axiom 0: The Relationship between Axiom and Translation
>>>>JP: I do not deny that this originary phenomenon is ontologically
>>>>prior to the language used to describe it.
>>>ME: This originary phenomenon can have many names,
>>JP: true enough; but, this originary phenomenon does not tell you its
>>own name.
>ME: Nobody said it did.
you have to report the results of your inquiry in some language; and,
that language needs to reflect the adult understanding of the relation
between a name and the thing named.
>>>ME: Yes, I do. Axiomatic systems in philosophy (cf. Spinoza’s) are
>>>invariably based on a misguided emulation of ostensibly rigorous
>>>mathematical method which unfortunately (for the striving for total
>>>calculability) runs off the rails in philosophical terrain..
>>JP: clearly, Spinoza took the axiomatic method to an extreme; but,
>>precisely where did he go astray?
I notice that you did not respond to this question.
>>equally clearly, it is possible to go too far toward the opposite
>>extreme by completely denying that there can be an axiomatic
>>foundation for the language in which philosophy is conducted or
>>expressed — especially since you’ve acknowledged that certain of the
>>axioms that I have proposed (0, 1, and 2) are actually true.
>ME: I have said nothing so far about your Axioms 1 and 2.
Axiom 1 is an axiom generated from Axiom 0 by substituting an actual
predicate for the placeholder. thus, your claim (for any x that is, x is
a being) could be symbolized as: (x)(Bx). that’s your Axiom 1.
Axiom 2 stated within the language of reality is: not every reality has
the same reality type. stated within the language of being, Axiom 2 is:
not every being has the same mode of being.
>>I suggest it might be interesting to compare your inventory of modes
>>of being with my inventory of reality types.
>ME: There’s no point whatever in comparing “inventories”. What is
>called for is a thinking-through of being and reality to discover what
>their senses are.
okay; for reasons that remain obscure, you have declined my suggestion
to compare your inventory of modes of being with my inventory of reality
types; but, it is known that you have at least two modes of being
because you give the mode of being that is characteristically human has
a special name: existence.
thus, your language respects Axiom 2.
>>the problematic claim is your insistence that every statement made
>>about being-[the originary phenomenon] is attributable to whatever is
>>a being-[the root predicate].
>ME: I certainly do not insist “that every statement made about
>being-[the originary phenomenon] is attributable to whatever is a
>being-[the root predicate]”.
well, then, don’t you think we need some idea of your taxonomy of all
that is in order to know which statements made about being-[the
originary phenomenon] are attributable to which modes of beings?
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
