Philosophical Dialogues
XVII
Essence and Existence
XVII
16th November, 1999
By Franz J. T. Lee
Intellect
a n d Reason
(A filled classroom. Many new faces await the coming lecture. A cool breeze refreshens the atmosphere. Very cool, Coseino addresses the students, reviewing the basics of Unilogic a n d Dialogic. He explains Einai, existing as the Relation "Intellect a n d Reason". The question-and-answer period is ushered in.)
Coseino: To begin the discussion, I have to beg for scientific patience and philosophic understanding. What we are treating today, I must admit, demands intellectual stringency and rational depth. Our topic today is very complex, is extremely complicated. For your sake, to the utmost, as far it is possible, I will attempt to give simple and clear explanations. Please try to follow me "step-by-step".
Before we embark on the tremendous task to elaborate the Gegensatz "Einai-for-Itself", Thinking-In a n d For-Itself, Intellect a n d Reason, let us recollect some important aspects with which we have dealt until now. Let us formulate our "TEN COMMANDMENTS " !
1. In previous lectures we have illustrated our Method, which de facto is our Logical Method, is our Logic. It does not operate in a "closed system", also not in an "open system"; it encompasses these and it includes more, i.e., it is neither a closed nor an open Logical Method. Until now, we have elaborated our Unilogic; furthermore, at present we are expounding our Dialogic; later, we will proceed with our Trialogic; and there are still much more to come.
2. We have illustrated our unilogical Percepts, Levels. Unigories and Sätze, for example, Cosmos, "and", Essence, Rest, Nature and Praxis.
3. Also, we have elaborated
our dialogical Concepts, Degrees, Diagories and "Gegensätze", for example,
Einai, "a n d", Existence, Motion, Society and Theory. Also, it has to be
noted that a Diagory, Concept or Gegensatz, are depicted as follows: Cosmos
a n d Einai, Essence a n d Existence, Rest a
n d Motion,
Nature a n d Society, Praxis a n d Theory,
Satz a n d Gegensatz, Level a n d Degree, "and"
a n d "a n d", Unilogic a n d Dialogic. Thus,
if we speak about "Einai", we always think "Cosmos a n d Einai";
if we discuss "Theory", we always analyse "Praxis a n d Theory".
4. Similarly, we
have introduced our trialogical Transcepts, Mensions, Triagories and "Entgegensätze",
for example, Nothing, "AND", Transcendence, Bezug, History, Emancipy. Also,
in this case, it is worthwhile to note, that a Transcept is always expressed
as a Triagory, for example, as "Cosmos a n d
Einai AND Nothing", as "and" a n d "a n d " AND "AND",
as Essence a n d Existence AND Transcendence, as Rest a
n d Motion AND Bezug, as Nature a n d Society AND History,
as Praxis
a n d Theory AND Emancipy.
5. Also, we have
underlined that, on a Level, Acting is Acting, that Thinking is Thinking,
that Reasoning is Reasoning; but, on a Degree, that Thinking exists as Acting
a n d Thinking; and, on a Mension, that Excellence
surpasses as "Acting
a n d Thinking AND Excellence".
6. We have emphasized that Acting is simple, that it has to be done like that, and that it must be expressed as such in words and language. We have stressed the necessity to understand that Thinking exists complex, that Thought exists as an endeavour which implies immense mental difficulties, and that it has to be elucidated as such in words and language.
7. Again: We use Words and Language as Tools for Action, Thinking and Excellence; but we have to develop more precise methods of expression and communication, of inter-relation.
8. We have deduced that Transcending surpasses on the apeironic frontiers of human imagination and daydreams; thus it excels in a foggy, opaque and vague manner, precisely as such it must be focussed in words and language.
9. These explanations indicate that logically levels, degrees and mensions should not be mixed up: Neither in Deed, nor in Thought, neither in Intellect nor in Reason.
10. Similarly, Sätze, Gegensätze and Entgegensätze, which correspond to Levels, Degrees and Mensions, and also to Acts, Thoughts and Excellence, must not be expressed in Words and Language as if they were ingredients of a roly-poly, even if the proof of this pudding is in the eating of it.
Now, having reached this degree of concentration and understanding, do you have any directly related ontic questions?
William: I know that we are in an Advanced Seminar of Philosophy, also that certain "concepts" and "categories" form part of the conditio sine qua non to follow and to understand the philosophic debate; nevertheless, although I have studied Hegel's "Logic", still I am not completely familiar with the "concept" "an sich", "in-itself". Please, could you simplify this complex, complicated term for us? I have the strange feeling that it, and its corresponding "Negation", that is, "fuer sich", "for-itself", will play a central role in the understanding of today's debate.
Coseino: I completely agree with you.
To take off, to simplify somehow our philosophic endeavour, let us ask an obvious childlike question: What is in-itself, an sich, en sí ?
All these concepts, more precisely, for us, all these percepts have a Greek-Latin origin and they are derived from kath’ hautó, in se, ipse in re. "Itself " is what something is; it denotes its being. In our sense, "itself" expresses the cosmic essence of something. of anything, of any thing.
Adam: Is "It-Self" that "What Is"? For example, the Holy Bible begins with: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was God". Here, "What Is" is identified, it is the Word, and as such identical with God. God is It-Self, is the Word! Is this what you mean? Is God, the Word, Cosmos?
Coseino: Yes! If the Word,
which is just a word, a tool of language, is What Is ,
then What Is is Cosmos! This, by philosophic
definition, by identification, we have established. Remember: "Call A Rose
by Any Other Name, It will Smell Just As Sweet".
Alfred: Thus, to identify something, we have to express its cosmic "It-Self". A rose, an egg, a capitalist, the IMF, the NWO, the Illuminati, cow, earth, wind and fire.
Coseino: Yes, its cosmic essence. In-Itself is the essence of a thing, its cosmic being. A "human being" who has no essence, and who is not related to "human existence", is not an "itself", is not even a "human being". We can only think about an Itself, about an identified essence or being. Because "ghosts" and "spirits" are not identified as cosmic beings, for this very reason we cannot identify them, and cannot even think about them. This is why people believe in the "Holy Ghost", in the "Holy Spirit". There is no way, no possibility to think, to think scientifically a n d philosophically about them.
Mohammed: Hence, Allah is a "Ghost", is "Great", is a Great Ghost?!
Coseino: True, Mohammed, provided that you don't insist, that Allah is, scientifically is, because in this case, you convert him into Cosmos, and everything what is, anything what is, for us is Cosmos.
Mohammed: And how do I know that something is?
Coseino: Very simply. By simply acting a n d thinking this something. By identifying it as being cosmic a n d by relating it, by differentiating it, as being something ontically existent. This will take you all some "time" to perform, but, please, do not give up. Where there is a Will, there is a Way! Adam and Mohammed, now you can apply this acquired knowledge by trying to identify God and Allah, and thereafter, by means of thinking, please tell us whether they are scientifically a n d philosophically existent. If you have no luck, then try to identify the Sun, the Moon and the Stars, and thereafter tell us whether they are ontically existent.
Karl: What kind of Relation has Cosmos (Acting)? And what is the difference to that of Einai (Thinking)? What is the Difference between an It-Self Relation and a For-itself Relation?
Coseino: You are really
asking: What is the difference between "and"
a n d
"a n d "? Also, how does
this difference exist? Do you all notice what Thinking is all about?
Take note of the "incision, decision and precision" of which we have spoken
last week. Generally, when we speak, without thinking, we do not carefully
select our "are" and our "exist", even less so our "and" or " a n d " or
"AND" or "A N D
" (the latter is a Quadrilogical Relation). We begin our sentences with "I
believe, that ..." and then the "Holy Ghost" and the "Holy Spirit" reign,
here and forever, Amen!
Karl: What then is a "Thing-In-Itself" for us? What is Internet-In-Itself, a Computer-In-Itself? Of course, I am aware that we are not talking about the Kantian "Ding-An-Sich", the official "Thing-In-Itself".
Coseino: Without noticing, you surely identified it very well. Our "Thing-In-Itself" is precisely the "Thing-In-Itself-For-Us"! As we have indicated before, It-Self reveals the and-Bezug, the non-relation, the indifference of anything to another thing. Strictly speaking, if it has any relation at all, then it is a non-relation, a self-relation. More precisely, a Thing-In-Itself, as an intellectual identification, is a Thing-At-Rest, is a Thought-Thing. This is what a "Thing-In-Itself" means.
Jeffrey: Professor, what is a Thought-Thing, a Gedankending? And, do we not find and-relations in Formal Logic?
Coseino: The Thing, the Thing-In-Itself and the Thought about a Thing are not identical. When we think, by means of our Intellect, by means of our Einai-In-Itself, we identify "thought-things", not the things. About the things of Cosmos, in all probability, we know "nothing", or very, very little. We do not even know much about such an omnipresent thing as Labour or Capital. We cannot even identify ourselves as "things", even Jeffrey, as identified by Jeffrey, by himself, is a Thought-Thing. Furthermore, concerning your second question, in a magnificent manner, the formal-logical Law of Non-Contradiction, that A can never be non-A, exhibits partially this type of non-relation, of this and-relation, of A-at-rest. However, it is important to note that a non-relation is also a type of relation which can be identified as such, namely as a "non-relation", as that what a relation is not; it is simply the non-relation of a relation and of nothing else. All Affirmations are non-relations, are At Rest; all Negations exist as Relations, more precisely, exist in Motion.
It is necessary to understand the above in order to comprehend at all the meaning of a "thing-in-itself" or an "itself", or an "it-in-itself". In brief, all Sätze underline the In-Itself of anything, that is, its cosmic essence. Hence all the following Percepts are Cosmic Beings, Cosmic Essences, Essential Beings :
Cosmos, Essence, Being, Human Being, Cosmos-In-Itself, Being-In-Itself, Human Being-In-Itself, Thinking-In-Itself, Action-In-Itself, Praxis-In-Itself, Nature-In-Itself, Society-In-Itself, Praxis, Einai-In-Itself, Intellect, Nothing-In-Itself.
Martina: Sorry, for a question which seems rather ridiculous, but I have to begin to think from scratch. What does "for" denote in our philosophic, dialogical context?
Coseino: Not so ridiculous
at all, my dear. A pertinent question!
Here, "for" does not have the general ideological content,
like, for example, in the famous phrase : "Government of the people, by the
people, and for the people". Also, it
does not have the following meanings: "My Love For
You", or "for better, or forworse". For Us, "for" presupposes a certain
minimum degree of consciousness, active consciousness, a consciousness of
any cosmic activity. "For-Itself" indicates "conscious of its own activity";
"conscious of its own relations"; "for-ourselves" means self-consciousness
of our own acts, of our cosmic essence. This is performed by Einai-In-Itself,
by Thought as Intellect, as thinking about cosmic things or activities; as
thinking about our own cosmic action, about our natural praxis. It is Thought
related to Cosmos but not to Thought-For-Itself; it does not exist as Thought
about Thought, as Thought-In-a n d-For-Itself, as Thought about Einai, as
Reason. Also, to be conscious simply means to think about cosmic activity,
about essential activity, about natural praxis; to be self-conscious, means
to perform this thinking by oneself, that oneself thinks, and not that the
thinking is done for us by others, in other words:
"Act a n d Think It All Of a n d By a n d For Yourself!"
(The bell tolls. Who knows for what it rings? For whom? Coseino catches himself and all by himself, he says good-bye to his students, who reluctantly are still devouring their food for thought, all of a n d by AND for themselves.)