Heidegger

Joe:
> >>perhaps you have found a contradiction; but, what happens if you
> >>remove from the taxonomy of all that is just enough to remove that
> >>contradiction. then you would have a MIT [Maximally Inclusive
> >>Taxonomy] … and some items left over. how could you stop someone
> >>from deciding that this creates a new taxonomy consisting of two
> >>categories: items included in the MIT and items excluded from the MIT.

mP:
> >Joe, I’m not too sure of my ground with your acronymal MIT, but
> >wouldn’t your MIT have to exclude its self (qua taxonomy) from itself
> >(that the MIT would have to exclude all taxonomies {including the
> >taxonomy of all that is} otherwise it would have to include the
> >taxonomy of all that is, it being a perfectly wonderful taxonomy); how
> >could such a MIT be defined to exclude perfectly good taxonomies (which
> >it is one)? Unless you mean it in an utterly arbitrary manner, which
> >makes your dodge something of an embarrassment. With what ontological
> >imperative would you exclude taxonomies from your “Maximally Inclusive
> >Taxonomy”? If you didn’t exclude the category of taxonomy from your MIT
> >then we’d be back with the problem of the infinitely dense and
> >neverending taxonomy (of all that is); why then would you perform this
> >seemingly arbitrary operation of excising taxonomies from your MIT
> >rather than remain with, face up to and confront the problem of the
> >original mathematical formulations (the taxonomy or set/class of all
> >that is) you appear to favour in presenting your thinking of be-ing?
>
> >My problem is with the original and second branch of your taxonomic
> >world of all that is: whether you arbitrarily excise the ‘problematic’
> >bits and move/relegate them to a second branch of the tree and leave
> >them as neglected deadening leaves falling to some ground, you’re still
> >left with a taxonomy (of all or a lot {still infinite!} that doesn’t
> >include taxonomies: why ever not? And anyway, that second branch (that
> >includes items excluded from the MIT) has all the problems of the
> >original taxonomy of all that is, and it is still part of the original
> >taxonomy of all that is (it hangs off the main trunk of the original).
> >So, Joe, the problem is merely transferred to a branch: the tree still
> >remains the problem (because its branched part contains the problem).
>
> >Or, arbitrary glosses are just arbitrary glosses, sweeping dirt under
> >the carpet, no?

Joe:
> Michael,
>
> you misunderstand. I am not unhappy having a taxonomy of all that is.
> you expressed some concern about it, though. you seem to suggest that a
> taxonomy of all that is would have to exclude itself.
>
> I am merely pointing out that, if you are unhappy with a taxonomy of all
> that is, you have quite a problem. you can’t eliminate or resolve your
> concerns by excluding anything from the taxonomy; because, as you point
> out, that merely recreates the problem elsewhere.

Joe, this is bizarro: my critique (above) of your invention and intervention
of your MIT into the problem I earlier raised concerning the possibly
impossible notion of a ‘taxonomy of all that is’ (your formulation, note),
that it would merely move and gloss the original problem but far from remove
it, you have just parroted as if the original formulation and the
introduction of your glossing MIT were within my problematic! *Your*
solution to the problem I raised of the ‘taxonomy of all that is’ (which I
formulated as basically a form of Russell’s Paradox) was to introduce your
MIT that would precisely (for you) “eliminate or resolve … concerns by
excluding [something, the difficult bits] from the taxonomy” (the branching
of the original tree into two branches, one with OK stuff {MIT}, the other
with the awkward stuff).

Joe:
> on the other hand, you can’t solve the problem by banning taxonomies,
> either. for one thing, Heidegger has at least two taxonomies; and, one
> of them takes a taxonomy of all that is … and *adds* the Nothing. he
> writes: “But is there not a third thing, which we must distinguish in
> addition to being and beings — the Nothing?” [Basic Concepts, sec. 9]
>
> so, Michael, what do you do? do you learn to live with a taxonomy of all
> that is? if not, do you add to it; subtract from it; or ban taxonomies
> altogether? if you decide to ban taxonomies, do you ban all taxonomies
> (including, for example, the taxonomy of living things used by
> biologists); or, do you just ban some taxonomies. if so, which
> taxonomies get banned?

Again, you bizarrely put the problem (created, for me, by *your* notion of a
‘taxonomy of all that is’, then resurrected via the gloss of the invention
of your MIT) in my court. You signally failed to even regard the critique I
made as pointing to the mathematical and thus inappropriately very bizarre
notion of your ‘taxonomy of all that is’. Instead you mirror and project
your problem in my thinking (as if the problem was mine!) rather than face
your original formulation (the now infamous ‘taxonomy of all that is’).

Could you not think the possibility that thinking being-as-a-whole might be
utterly inappropriately rendered by such as a taxonomy or set or class? That
it might not be representable mathematically, that it might not be
representable at all? Have you read Heraclitus and/or Heidegger’s and Fink’s
considerations of Heraclitus’ thinking of precisely ‘the all’ (_ta panta_)?

If you cannot consider such possibilities then perhaps Bob Guevera (along
with MichaelE) is correct in seeing you as essentially sophistically
slippery and a multiplier of (mathematical) distinctions just for the sake
of it (these being precisely the *avoidances and glossing* of thinking
philosophically).

> Joe

regards

michaelP

Posted on Sunday, March 23rd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback