Philosophical Dialogues
XVI
Essence and Existence XVI
16th November, 1999
By
Franz J. T. Lee
Einai, Existence, Society, Philosophy, Theory,
Thinking, Idea and Thought
(Coseino terminates his lecture, then he introduces the discussion.)
Coseino: Last time we discussed Cosmos, Essence, Nature, Science, Praxis, Acting, Act and Action, and how they are expressed logically in Words or Language. Today we will introduce Einai, Existence, Society, Philosophy, Theory, Thinking, Idea and Thought. In other words, last time we dealt with Doing and Act expressed in Language, today we will begin, we will begin to learn how to think, how to formulate ideas and how to express Thinking and Thought, Theory and Philosophy, in Language, in Words. Mahatma, did you enjoy, did you understand the philosophic appraisal of Indira, with reference to Theoretical Physics and Quantum Mechanics? Can you comment on the lecture?
Mahatma: Prof. Coseino, not that I don't want to, but I can only comment on what I know and understand. The lecture is too difficult for my coco, for my degree of thinking. My apologies to Indira.
Coseino: Thanks for a very sincere reply. In fact, I expected a similar answer from the majority of my class. If I had read Indira's lecture to her three years ago, she probably would have felt likewise. Surely, two weeks ago, when she was collecting material for her exposition, she must have had a similar problem like you, Mahatma. She did not "understand" Einstein, Schroedinger and Heisenberg, simply because she had not studied Physics, neither privately nor at University; her field is Philosophy, Sociology and Politics. How come that she could deliver such an excellent piece on a topic relatively unknown to her? Why does she understand what she wrote? Why can she comment on it? Why could she comment on any lecture concerning any scientific a n d philosophic topic, ranging from Nanotechnology to Chaos Theory? Students, what do you think? Why is this so, is this possible? Mahatma, why are you here in my class, in a Philosophy Class?
Mahatma: To improve my thinking, to think more, to learn to think more about thinking itself, to be more incisive, decisive and precise in expressing my thoughts in words, in language. And, most important, to relate thinking with daily life, to understand and to solve everyday problems which hinder emancipatory processes.
Coseino: Brilliant! Mahatma, where or when do we learn to act?
Mahatma: As labourers, at our workplace. In the factory, in the bank, in the offices of Microsoft, General Motors, of the IMF. There the boss, the CEO, "thinks", and we just carry out his orders, hence, we act passively, which means that our coco does not directly enter into the production process. We perform Physical or Intellectual Labour. This Labour Force is our Commodity, we sell it to the boss; in return we receive a miserable pittance, a salary which just about keep our body and "soul" alive, which just renovates our labour force for more extensive economic exploitation tomorrow.
Coseino: Proceed. Continue Thinking! Begin to understand, although you are not an expert on Marxist Economic Theory, not of Capital.
Mahatma: Professor, why do you think that I am here? Here, in your Philosophy Class?
Coseino: A fair, fairly legitimate question. However, I prefer that Patricia comments on the issue.
Patricia: I have been taught that I am a "human being" and that I think. I was also told that Thinking and Consciousness differentiate me from animals, insects and plants. Until now, I was convinced that I have been thinking all my life. I studied the Thought of Great Thinkers, I studied their ideas and theories, their philosophy. In fact, I studied the History of Philosophy; of course, taking note that History is being made by Great Men, having Great Ideas, and belonging to a "Great Race", as a result of Great Discoveries and Great Technology; all this, for the sake of Man, of the Human Being, so that he can live better, longer and happier on this planet.
Today, at the end of the so-called "Second Millennium", everybody is concerned about the continuation of this "Greatness" in future. The problem is that I do not feel great, do not feel great about my degree of thinking. I am not happy that I can barely understand the lecture of Indira. I am beginning to examine my thinking, my thoughts. However, I fully realize that to learn to think will cost me the "greatest" intellectual and rational effort which I can imagine. Babbling and rambling do not cost a farthing, for these, we don't utilize a minimal mental effort; our daily ideological saliva flows from our lips as cosy as sewerage skids down the drain. And yet, armed to the teeth, everybody defends her/his "thinking" with all that it takes.
Coseino: And what are you discovering?
Patricia: Firstly, that I am the greatest "Polly" of all times. I am beginning to question whether learning by rote, by repeating the "great ideas" of others, whether this is "thinking", and if this should be so, then "thinking" is nothing special. I also realize that I do not think, that others, the "great ones", think for me. Furthermore, I am noticing that my way of "thinking" and that of billions do not really differ basically, existentially; it does not serve the interests of all human beings; on the contrary, it serves the interests of the privileged classes, of the wealthy, of the owners of the means of production, of Capital. Jeffrey would say of the "Illuminati"; Karl identifies them as the global, globalized "14 wealthy families", who suffer from "the spoiled brat syndrome".
Mahatma: Could it be that we have been taught Ideology, that we are not thinking, but ideologizing? Without noticing it, have we been indoctrinated permanently, our minds manipulated, controlled? Do we, the "wretched of the earth", think at all? Did we ever think? Were we ever allowed to think? From the "cradle to the grave" have we ever really been given the opportunity to think for ourselves? And if we tried to do it, what happened to us? Why are we in the madhouse, like Wilhelm Reich? Why are we unemployed, like me?
Coseino: If I understood you both correctly, then you are trying to tell us that all along you were not equipped to think, that you are not thinking, that you have never learned to think, that every thinking effort was officially "nipped in the bud", and that you are here, because, at last, you want to think, want to learn to think, all by yourself, by, for and with us. Well, I must warn you, if you have not been thinking for two or three decades, never ever in your life, then surely, to begin now, will be demanding, strenuous, arduous. You either take up the challenge or you leave it. I would suggest that you neither take it nor leave it! In this case, you can recover 30 years of your life, without any original thought, within 30 days! Thereafter, you will just be sprouting with all sorts of new ideas, asking hundreds of uncomfortable questions like a three-year old. Would you like that, to be like that, to exist like that?
Mahatma & Patricia: (in unison) Yeah!
Coseino: Students, have you ever noticed that to begin to learn anything, that it is difficult, because it is new? And a brand new thing or thought is something, which we never did before, which we never thought or thought about before? Also, that if we use, put into use a new thing, that it is not new anymore?
Karl: That is true. This is why we are Renaissance People who are permanently developing a New Philosophy.
Coseino: Agreed, but .....
Bill:
Did I understand what you meant? Are you saying that Praxis
a n d Theory
are essentially a n d existentially NEW,
which means that they cannot be repeated formal-logically, not in zigzag,
not in tictac form, not in Space and Time? Does this mean that any "new"
version of a computer program is never new?
Coseino: Precisely that. How many "new" versions of Netscape, of Internet Explorer, of AOL, do you have already? And the next one will not even be "new", because many other "new" ones, produced months and years ago, already await you in the storehouses. The same applies to other capitalist commodities on the world market.
Karl: (in total consternation) Are you implying that we, the Renaissance People, are also in the "storehouses", that de facto, we are not NEW, not even as New Renaissance People?
Coseino: Karl, you are placing me on the "horns of a dilemma". But, let us pack the "bull" by its "horns"! If my pitiful French does not leave me in the lurch, then naissance means "birth", consequently, Words or Language. Today we will introduce Einai, Existence, Society, Philosophy, Theory, Thinking, Idea and Thought. I means Re-birth. The prefix "re-" denotes again, means "repeat again". This simply means that problems are being solved by realizing that the current living, real thing is useless, hence, this same thing must be re-born, be born again. Of course, this implies that it should not be the same thing which it is now. It even suggests that it must be exactly the opposite of what it is now. In my opinion, this is not rebirth, because the egg of a hen, unless capitalist cloning interferes, will always produce a chicken, and surely not a "beautiful duckling". This also applies to the eggs of capitalist snakes. In other words, renaissance within the context of the system will just reproduce another variety of the very same system. This Hegel had demonstrated at best with the Dialectical Method and the "Renaissance", with the "Words or Language. Today we will introduceWords or Language. Today we will introduce Einai, Existence, Society, Philosophy, Theory, Thinking, Idea and Thought. I
Karl: But the Renaissance did take place within History, within our World System. It produced the fertile seeds of capitalism in Northern Italy, which surely was a more democratic system, a more advanced world order than the Inquisition in the Dark Ages.
Jeffrey: Karl, do you mean a New World Order? The Re-Birth, the Renaissance of the Old World Order? The one which we are enjoying now, playing "Russian Roulette", as long as the fun lasts?
Karl: Surely not. I am talking about a birth which the world has never seen before, and which it will never ever witness again.
Coseino: Now you are talking my language. Now we can talk about Action a n d Thought, about Praxis a n d Theory, about Science a n d Philosophy, about a New Philosophy. Now we can proceed with our mission: to learn to think, to understand. Who already knows how Thinking exists, knows how to think, who doesn't exhibit any interest in our Philosophy, of course, is in no way obliged to accompany us. It would be a precious waste of time. Who considers us to be elitist and esoteric, in any case, cannot understand us. Perhaps they should check: http://www.whatsnewtoo.com; such a Web Site really exists! Thus: Are You Ready? Let "James Brown" accompany us on our Ontic Voyage. Let's start new, anew, with new Thinking and New Thoughts. Has anybody got any objection, any question to ask, any comment to make?
Jeffrey: We really would like to think, to learn to think. Could you explain the thinking process, step-by-step to us?
Coseino: My dear Jeffrey, the problem is that Thinking does not develop "step-by-step"; this ideology does, within "space and time" parameters. Also, do not forget that Thinking exists complex, complicated. In reality, for a healthy brain, thinking is the easiest thing to do; however, we at first have to get rid of the dust and rust, of the ideology and formal logic.
Martina: Okay! What are the first complex and complicated steps of Thinking and Thought?
Coseino: First Question: What is To Be Done? First Step: Do It! Next Question: That I exist? How I exist? Second Step: I exist. Then, Exist! Next Question: How Do I Exist? Answer: I do a n d I exist! Consequently: Thinking exists as: Doing a n d Thinking! Third Step: Do a n d Think! Theory exists as: Praxis a n d Theory. Philosophy exists as: Science a n d Philosophy, Society exists as: Nature a n d Society. All these exist as complex and complicated as that! Very "simple" and "easy" indeed!
But, we should study, should think, should know how "a n d" exists, should identify it, must know what "a n d" is all about; then we must differentiate it, from "and", differentiate it from Cosmic Action. By differentiating Action a n d Thought, or Acting a n d Thinking, we "relate" them. Now, let us stop the "Quickstep" here. Let us firstly introduce the first baby steps of thinking and thought. But, before we proceed, do you have any questions?
Jeanette: At first, could you please summarize our discussion of last week.
Coseino: In a nut-shell, here it is: In the previous lecture, we illustrated the meaning of the Sätze "Cosmos" and "and" ; we demonstrated their Essence as Action, not as Existence, not as Thinking. We used words and language, as tools, to express ourselves, to intercommunicate our Acting, Doing and Being. Explained ex post facto : we did not think Cosmos, we were natural, we acted very cosmic. It is Einai, Society, Philosophy, Theory, Thinking, which have to be thought, to be thought about. In brief, we think about Existence. Hence, as "human existences" we exist, we think, we relate, we inter-relate socially, we socialize ; as "human beings" we are, we act, we are natural, we naturalize. It is all just as simple as that.
Karl: How do we relate? How do we think?
Coseino: To relate, to think, to socialize, to negate, at least there must be more than one to dance the dialogical tango: a minimum of two; two "sides" of the same thing exist inter-related. In this case, Acting a n d Thinking! And, they have to be two different "sides" else they cannot be inter-related, they have to be direct opposites, Gegensätze, counterparts, opuestos. Furthermore, they have an internal, intensive relation, an interrelation, an a n d-Bezug, in short, Motion; if the two elements are related externally, extensively, then they are connected to other elements but not to themselves, that is, they do not form two sides of the very same thing, of a Gegensatz, of a Counterposition. However, the latter only refers to our Trialogic.
Only direct opposites, affirmations a n d negations, can exist inter- related, can form "contradictions", counterpositions, Gegensätze. To arrive at a Gegensatz ("contradiction", counterposition), two Sätze (paradigms, positions) have to be counterpoised, müssen gegengesetzt werden. Hence, to arrive at a Gegensatz, at a Contraposition, at a "Contradiction", at a Theorem, we first have to postulate (setzen) the essential elements of this Gegensatz. In more detail, we will discuss such terms like "contradiction", "opposite", "affirmation" or "negation" much later.
Now, let us begin to think, to intellectualize !
We have to counterpostulate, to counterpoise; but this time, as concepts, as ideas, as thoughts, as theorems. Again we are using our magic tool, inherited from the Patria, which functions par excellence in identification (formal logic) a n d in differentiation (dialectical logic). Before, in the Unilogic, which is part of our Dialogic, we postulated "What is", now we counterpoise "That exists", "dass existiert", "que existe", not quidditas, but quodditas , not our Whatness, but our Thatness, not what we are, but "that we exist at all", "dass wir überhaupt existieren".
Patricia: Professor, time is up! We have to leave.
Coseino: Well, we will continue next time, with the next step of Cosmos a n d Einai, of Acting a n d Thinking, of Praxis a n d Theory. Have an excellent Week-End!
[Prof. Coseino takes one step backward (toward rest),
and two steps forward (toward rest a n d motion). He just
wonders whether his students have taken notice of his Cosmic Act a n
d Ontic Thought.]