tree of be-ing
March 21st, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Root of ‘Being’ and the be-ing of root :: Root of ‘Being’ and the be-ing of root :: tree of be-ing :: Root of ‘Being’ and the be-ing of root
Joe:
>>>a taxonomy is a tree structure; and, in a taxonomy of all that is
mP:
>> Joe, it seems to me (and I’ve entered this room before on sets/classes of
>> “everything”) that there can not be “a taxonomy of all that is” because it
>> would have to contain its self, ad infinitum (because a taxonomy is a being
>> too); of course, if thought purely mathematically, one could construct an
>> infinite or transfinite self-containing ‘object’, some sort of ‘fractal’ or
>> whatever, for this tree of everything… but if you’re talking of the
>> ‘actual’ things in being, the everything (and every thing), then I find it
>> difficult to imagine this tree of all: it seems (apart from any failure of
>> imagination on my part, quite possible) that such would have to be something
>> like a mathematical (fictive) object or a mystical fanatasy. Mayhap
>> everything, the all, can not be structured like a tree (or organised as a
>> tree-structure)?
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.
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?
regards
michaelP
