Philosophical Dialogues  XV  

           
Essence and Existence XV   

12th November, 1999

By  Franz J. T. Lee 

INTRODUCING DIALOGICS AND TRIALOGICS

 (The lecture begins. Coseino proceeds with a general introduction about Cosmos.)

Coseino: You all surely studied and enjoyed the lecture of Indira on the topic of "Theoretical Physics". Of course, to understand the references made to our Science  a n d  Philosophy, we first should introduce it, its Postulate, its Logic, its Epistemology. A while ago, Patricia had already given you a review of my "private" discussion with her concerning some basics of our Philosophy. Today I will elaborate these, of course, aided by your remarks, comments and questions. In fact, we, together, are going to develop our Science  a n d  Philosophy, in short, our Philosophy.

But, as usual, before we start the debate, let me remind you once more of our "golden rule", which is a sine qua non to understand my comments in general, and Indira's lecture in particular:

Thus, before we advance to more complex avenues, ventures and adventures, let us focus on the everyday practical and praxical aspects of our cosmic,  philosophical endeavour. As our classes unfold themselves, develop and transcend, we all logically and necessarily will progressively apply the scientific a n d  philosophic results to everyday life. Here you have the Triagory of this "Golden Rule":

Simple  a n d  Complex  AND  Vague

A. Simple is simple, is easy.
B. Complex exists as Simple  a n d  Complex, as the opposite of Simple, therefore,
     it exists complicated.
C. Vague transcends as Simple  a n d   Complex  AND  Vague, it excels
    as Neither Simple Nor Complex, therefore, it superates as vague,
    opaque, "unsharp", uncertain, extremely difficult to express.

Now, as revision, and we can't review this rule enough, it is reminiscential to note, that we stated certain philosophic analytic logical rules : simple relations and affirmations (levels) are to be explained precisely, id est, simply ; complex concatenations and negations (degrees) exist intricately, and they presuppose intellectual difficulties ; vague, frontier like superations (mensions) are "unsharp", uncertain, excellent to reason, but they demand limitless (apeironic) transcendental efforts. In brief : What is simple has to be elaborated as such ; what is complex has to be explained in a similar manner ; what is opaque can only be approached in a vague fashion ; mixing up these rules will certainly end up with the superstructural ideological chaos which we enjoy nowadays in nearly all our means of social communication, and it can cause fatal mental derangement, which is the essence of Zombization on a world scale.

Having highlighted the above, now we can continue with "affirmative action", giving simple examples and explanations of our unilogical manner of approaching the Cosmos, and therewith Nature at large, our "natural habitat". I notice, Patricia, that you impatiently want to ask a question.

Patricia: Well, Professor, here we go! Seeing that we are in a philosophy class, what has the traditional concept Being or "Sein" got to do with our Philosophy?

Coseino: Let us survey and preview the general philosophic contents of any primordial postulate or Satz. In the "History of Philosophy" these contents are generally included in the Concept Being, Sein or Ser. Being, as participle,  is derived from the verb: to be. Thus Being refers to what is. For us, what is? Anything which we identify, which we can think about, which we want to talk about. Anything simple, cosmic, concrete; but we can also identify or discuss other specific things: theory, thought, resurrection, god, hell, ghost, archetype, dog, chaos or human being. When we talk about chaos, then we are not discussing about a ghost or a human being; i.e., we identify what is our topic; we capture it in a closed system, we affirm it. This is the simplest way of talking about Being.

Albert: This all reminds me of the Newtonian "Cosmos". But, Professor, please give us some examples of philosophic Being.

Martina: Perhaps, starting from the Ancient Greeks, from the Pre-Socratics.

Coseino: Various philosophers have determined this Being in a materialistic fashion, or at least in a panpsychic or hylozoistic manner, for example, as hydor, water, (Thales), apeiron , das Unbegrenzte, the Unlimited, Eternal, (Anaximander), aêr, Luft, air (Anaximenes), pyr, Feuer, fire (Heracleitus), sphairos, Zahl, number (Pythagoras), or átomon, the Indivisible, das Unteilbare (Leukippus and Democritus), or materia, matter, die Materie (Marx, Bloch).

Bill: Are there also idealist or religious versions of this uni- and bi-nary system?

 Coseino: Others preferred the idealistic or theological connotation of Being, of Sein, for example, idéa, eidos (Plato), morphé, form (Aristotle), or Dyaus, Zeus, Tyr, Deus, Gott (St. Augustine and the Fathers of the Church), or even anima, spirit, Geist, Weltgeist, Vernunft (Kant, Hegel). Others have produced a pot-pourri, a sancocho of both types of Being, of Sein.

Adam: Are there "lesser beings"  and   "greater  beings", "human beings  a n d  divine beings"?

Coseino: We, of course, do not practise "philosophic Racism". However, as you all are aware,  the "lesser beings", Fanon's "wretched of the earth", Hugo's "miserables", the common folk, simply accept the traditional and cultural Pavlov-Dog archetypes, and they talk about "Gott und die Welt" , about "God and the World", about the Cosmos, Universe, Weltall, Nature, "Mother Nature", the "Holy Father", "Our Father", "Heaven and Earth", "Heaven and Hell", the "Patria", about the "Human Being", about the "menschliche Wesen", about the "Ser Humano".

 Of course, all these, and much more, fall under our postulate, our Satz, COSMOS;  they are superated in Cosmos, but our Cosmos denotes much more; others are reserved for our theorem, EINAI;  and others pertain to our superem, NADA (Nichts, Nihil, Nothing). Other philosophic meanings of Cosmos will be expounded during the course of our future elaborations.

Patricia: Can I formulate a scientific question? Professor,  What Is Cosmos?

Coseino: As we stated in another context, simple questions are answered likewise. Question: What is Cosmos? Answer: What is Cosmos! Cosmos is What, is What Is! This is the basics of our Unilogic.

Mahatma: Please identify our Logic for us. Why do you speak about different types of Logics? Also, what is Logic for us?

Coseino: A brilliant observation, a simple question!
Simply expressed Logic is our Mode of Acting  a n d  Thinking  AND  Excelling. It is our scientific  a n d  philosophical  AND  emancipatory Method. We are not limited to one or two particular logics, we apply Multi-Logic. For each sphere, we have a specific logic, e.g., for levels, for Cosmos, Science, Praxis and Nature, only a specific mode, our Unilogicis valid. For the sphere of Thought, Theory, Philosophy and Society, our Dialogic exists, and its mode, its degree, deals with the Unilogic  a n d  Dialogic. Furthermore, we do not operate with the traditional philosophical "Concepts" or "Categories", but simply with Unigories, Diagories and Triagories.

Jeanette: Please give us examples of an Unigory, a Diagory and a Triagory.

Coseino: Fine! The following, depending on the matters which we treat, are all Unigories: Cosmos, Essence, Rest, Nature, Science, Praxis, Postulate, Act, Unigory, Percept, Unilogic, Affirmation, Identity, In-Itself, Cow, Egg, Student, etc.

Jeanette: And, how do Diagories differ?

Coseino: You said it, my dear! Diagories differ, they exist; they exist  differently, they differentiate! To indicate their existence, their difference, we use the symbol, word or relation: a n d  .

Alfred: Then, show us the difference. I notice already a difference to formal-logical thinking, even to Dialectics.

Coseino: Patience. The matter is becoming complex, complicated. We have left the concrete levels of "window-shopping", we now exist in the degrees of Ontic Thought. We are beginning to think, we are no more at rest; things are no more usual, ordinary, so clear, so simple, so concrete. We act  a n d  think, we deal with Science  a n d   Philosophy!

William: Please, Doc, let Schroedinger's Cat out of the Box!

Coseino: The corresponding Diagories, depending on our topic, exist as follows:

Cosmos  a n d   Einai, Essence  a n d   Existence, Rest  a n d  Motion, Nature  a n d  Society, Science  a n d  Philosophy, Praxis  a n d  Theory, Postulate  a n d  Theorem, Act  a n d  Thought, Unigory  a n d  Diagory, Percept  a n d  Concept, Unilogic  a n d  Dialogic, Affirmation  a n d  Negation, Identity  a n d  Difference, In-Itself  a n d  For-Itself, Cow  a n d  Herd, Egg  a n d  Fowl, Student  a n d  Professor, etc.

All these can be expressed as  Diagories, as Einai, Existence, Motion, Society, Philosophy, Theory, Theorem, Thought, Diagory, Concept, Dialogic, Negation, Difference, For-Itself, Herd, Fowl, Professor, etc.; they exist as explained before, and they must be differentiated or thought as such. Surely, this is not easy, not simple. This is why I stated that Thought and Theory exist complex, complicated.

The following are examples of Triagories:

Cosmos  a n d  Einai  AND  Nothing
Essence  a n d  Existence  AND  Transcendence
Rest   a n d   Motion  AND  Bezug (Relation)
Nature  a n d  Society  AND  History
Science  a n d  Philosophy  AND Emancipation
Praxis  a n d   Theory  AND  Emancipy
Postulate  a n d  Theorem  AND Superem
Action  a n d   Thought  AND  Excellence
Unigory  a n d  Diagory  AND  Triagory
Percept  a n d  Concept  AND  Transcept
Unilogic  a n d  Dialogic  AND Trialogic
Affirmation  a n d  Negation  AND  Superation
Identity  a n d  Difference  AND  Triversity
In-Itself   a n d  For-Itself   AND  Trans-Itself
Cow  a n d   Herd  AND  Beef
Egg   a n d   Fowl   AND  Meal
Student  a n d  Professor  AND  University.

Mohammed: But, surely, this is not what I have been taught about Cosmos at school .

Mahatma: Also as such,  Islam or Hinduism did not portray their cosmovision!

Coseino: It is important to note that for us, Cosmos is not that what is designated in everyday language as "objective reality", "external reality", "physical world", some dualistically separated entity, as something totally excluded from the wonderful "internal or spiritual world" of Man, of the Human Being.

Adam: Is our Cosmos divine, a type of Platonic World, or is it even an Hegelian "World Spirit"?

Coseino: It has no affinity to Plato’s soma sema or to Plotin’s devilish Matter; even less, it does not refer to any "carnal sins, knowledge or union" of earthly religious creatures. It does not contain any normative or divine values; it is not higher or better than the Spirit; it is not a philosophical by-product or dialectical excretion of any Divine Spirit; also it is not created by any Higher Being; it is
eo ipso , von selbst, Being; that is, it is Essence per se, an sich, durch sich.

Karl: But, Professor, how come that Cosmos is at rest, in repose, rests in peace?  I see things move around in Cosmos; at least, in what I understand by the World, by objective, concrete, outer reality.

Karl: Then, at least, please explain to me whether Cosmos acts, whether we act or can act?

Coseino: Cosmos acts ; we act, we act within Cosmos, Cosmos acts within us. Our Acts and Action can be expressed, in symbols, in sounds, in words, in language. All these are not thinking, not thought. They are what they are: Acts, Actions, Attitudes, Praxis. Words and Language are only vehicles, only tools, to express Cosmos. They can also be used for Thinking or Thought, for EINAI; but also for Surpassing, Superating and Transcending, for Nihil, Nada, NOTHING. Also, note here that Nothing does not mean "absence of something": There is nothing in my beer glass. There is nothing in the house. You will disappear in nothingness. Nothing can be done for you. Later this Transcept will be elucidated.

Indira: Can Words or Language Think for Us?

Coseino: We do not think in words or language; language and words do not think for us! If this were so, then our " brains" would be identical with a Brockhaus or a Webster’s Dictionary, or even a Larousse, individually, we would be simply a marauding "Encyclopaedia Britannica".

 We identify Cosmos with acts, with percepts, with sensorial activity, with praxis. This we can express in words, in language: The cat eats the mouse. John kicks the stone. It rains. Cosmos itself is a Percept.

I remarked previously that Cosmos acts in itself, that Cosmos acts in us, that we act in ourselves, and that we act within Cosmos itself. I also stated that Cosmos can self reflect its own Action, for example, the mirror reflection of snow capped Pico Bolivar in its own Andean lagoon below. Whether Pico Bolivar " knows" this, or whether we "see" this with our eyes, or with our mind, are topics for the next lectures, concerning Negation, Einai. At least, the Hegelian World Spirit objectivates itself in its own Absolute Mirror, and in this "Vergegenständlichung", in this "Entäusserung", later called "Entfremdung", Alienation, in this Auto Reflection of itself, it can cognize, can recognize itself; not as mirror reflection, but as Itself-In-Itself, as Weltgeist-An-Sich.

Karl: Do We Act? And How Do We Act?

Mahatma: Can Acts and Action be expressed in Words and Language?

 Hence, we have to differentiate when we use words and language: that is, to know whether we express Action or Thought or Transcendence. The same language and alphabet are used, but not necessarily the same words and expressions. We cannot use chaotic terms to expound levels (Action), degrees (Thought) and mensions (Excellence) . This is the pot-pourri and sancocho which we spoke about earlier.

We use language to express Action ; we use certain words and expressions; we use Unilogic, and our basic terms are Percepts. For example, we use Essence and its verb "is", or we use "and" in Unilogic, expressing Cosmic Action; we do not use Existence, and its verb "exists" or "a n d " in Unilogic, because they pertain to Dialogic, to Diagories, to Concepts, to Ontic Thought, to Einai.

Albert: I understand. However, what then is a Relation, a "Bezug"? What do "and", "a n d ", "AND" denote for us?

Coseino: The Percepts which denote the Cosmos at rest, and which describe its intensive motion, its repose, its multiplicity, its poliversality, are methodologically identified as Unigories, and they compound the essence of our Unilogical Method, our Unilogic. Cosmos perceives itself unigorically, unilogically; it is its own Self Reflection, Selbst-Bezug.

Indira: Does the Triagory, Rest  a n d  Motion  AND  Bezug also have levels, Degrees and Mensions?

Coseino: Of course,  the Bezug itself has levels (and), degrees (a n d ) and mensions (AND).

Karl: What then is/are our Unigoric Postulate(s)?

Coseino: Firstly, in general, we postulate: COSMOS , NON-RELATION, NICHT-BEZUG, symbolically expressed as  and.

 In this case, our NICHT-BEZUG is expressed as and.

 Thus: COSMOS , and.

In reality, we do not set, do not postulate  and, the Non-Relation, the Nicht-Bezug, because it is already our Method, but just for the sake of clarity and remembrance, we for the moment, include it here. Later, we will presuppose it, as being evident. Hence: We simply postulate:  COSMOS.

 On a level, we poise, (setzen) Cosmos.

Later, on a degree, we will counterpoise (gegensetzen) Cosmos a n d Einai .

Thereafter, on a mension, we will  juxtapoise (entgegensetzen) Cosmos a n d Einai AND Nothing.

William: To what do they correspond?

 Coseino: The above correspond to our Unilogic, Dialogic and Trialogic respectively. Students, do you have any general questions concerning the basics of our New Philosophy? Any question is valid!

Patricia: What is "NEW" about our Philosophy? What purpose in life does this Philosophy serve?

Coseino: Can anybody be so kind, assisting me to answer this decisive question?

Jeanette: I will try. The more I think of it now, after listening to our lecture and debates, I come to the conclusion, that I barely have thought anything myself till now. I cannot even find any original idea, which I ever had expressed. I, either have learned it in the school or family circle, or I had acquired the idea from a dictionary. I absorbed all my "knowledge" passively, thinking that others knew better, and that they are teaching me the "right" thing necessary for a decent living. I never thought that the whole system, in the first place, generates ideology, manipulation and indoctrination, in its own interests. Of course, here and there, I have learned valuable things, to get on in life; but these were more the exceptions, the accidental acquisition of thoughts, of Theory, of Philosophy. I never came on the idea, to think for, of and by myself, to philosophize by and for myself. I thought, that the education which I am receiving will do the job for me, as long as I study diligently and conscientiously. Of course, among the smog, debris and rubbish of our world system, here and there, some "precious stones" can be detected, but it is well-nigh impossible, simply a waste of time, to look for them, when they are covered with centuries of lies, tricks and censorship. Alas! The bitter lesson is, that I was off the track. Thanks to our Philosophy, at last, I can act, can think, can excel all by myself, with all of you. This is the logical conclusion, which I drew from our debate till now. Only now, I can begin to study, begin to understand Indira's lecture.

Bill: Of course, at first, I found the lecture of Indira somehow strenuous, like something which does not concern me immediately;  my brain rebelled, I found everything too difficult, even somehow "boring". At the beginning of our debate, the same strange "feeling" was present. I could not see the practical, pragmatic, concrete side of all this talking. I even thought that it was too hair-splitting, was sophistry, something "our of this world". But, then, after second thoughts, I suddenly realized exactly what Jeanette has stated before. This is a new feeling, a new attitude towards thinking, theory and philosophy. I begin to think myself, begin to see thinking as part of me, that I am an active participant, that I do exist as a philosopher.

Adam: I never denied that I'm religious, that I’m a Roman Catholic, and that I want to become a priest, to help the "wretched of the earth", and to guide them, in the Hereafter, towards Heaven. I still maintain this position, still pursue these objectives, nevertheless, Prof. Coseino, you taught me something else. You respect my views, you affirm them, and then you tell me to believe, but please, to do more, to think also. You beg me to do likewise, as you do it, also to affirm thinking, in the same way I affirm believing. You show to me that Thinking and Believing are two distinct processes. You do not attack me, because I am religious; on the contrary, you encourage me to believe more, that I draw my own intellectual conclusions. Well, this not even the Pope is teaching me. At school and at university, you all know what is happening: one enters university somehow bodily healthy and mentally sane; but one leaves the alma mater with a Doctorate summa cum laude , full of alma, filled with mater, yet without a backbone and brains.

Coseino: Well, thank you for your comments. They were like ice-cold water soothing the thirst of a wandering "Lone Ranger" in the Arizona Desert of our Patria, of our Fatherland. Next week, we will continue the lecture and this discussion.

        (The class ends. A radiant, illuminating ray falls on Coseino's lecture notes.)