PANDEMONIUM BOOKS & PUBLICATIONS.
Merida, Venezuela, 1999.
COPYRIGHT: Franz J. T. Lee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
EINAI-FOR-ITSELF,
PHILOSOPHY
AND UNIVERSITY
RECOGNITION
In the previous lectures we have applied our method to analyse the
NEWSWEEK article; at the same time, we paved the road for a deeper
understanding of Reason, of Einai-For-Itself, which is always thought
as Einai-In- a n d -For-Itself, as Intellect a n d Reason.
Here we will
attempt to extend the discussion to Philosophy and to the alma
mater,
to the patrian University.
Even Reason as such has to be identified, otherwise we would not know
about what precisely we are thinking. Also, there is a difference between
a discussion about the Identification of Reason and an illustration
of the
Differentiation of Reason. In the first case, like in all identification
processes, we are cutting off the extensive Bezüge of Reason,
that is,
we are not discussing Cosmos a n d Einai, Cosmos
a n d (Einai-In
a n d For-Itself), Cosmos a n d (Intellect
a n d Reason), we are
identifying only Reason as such. And Reason as such exists as :
(Einai-In a n d For-Itself).
In nuce, we just call it simply Einai-For-Itself or Reason, because
we
know precisely what we are thinking about. We did not sever the
intensive Bezüge of Reason, they are all still intact. Reason
is
composed of its very own elements and relations; if we recall
previous elaborations, Reason, AS ITSELF, AS SUCH,
can be
simplified as follows :
{(Cosmos and Einai) a n d (Cosmos a n d Einai)}
{(Einai-In-Itself and Einai-For-Itself) a n d (Einai-In-Itself
a n d Einai-For-itself)}
{(Einai-In-Itself) a n d
(Einai-For-Itself) }
{(Intellect)
a n d (Reason)}
{
R E A S O N
}.
IDENTIFICATION ANDDIFFERENTIATION
Hence, what we are discussing below are all these elements and their
intensive relations. Also, take heed: Because we are identifying Reason.
All the elements, moments and relations are specifically rational,
they
pertain to Reason, they are neither cosmic nor intellectual. This simply
means, for example, that Cosmos in Intellect is not identical with
Cosmos
in Reason, and surely not to Cosmos in Cosmos and Einai or in
Cosmos
a n d Einai. Cosmos is dependent on its relations, it is
and it acts according
to its Bezüge. Cosmos is the totality of its elements, moments
and non-relations,
Bezüge; it acts, it "changes" accordingly; and we can identify
its totality in flux,
or any specific moment, element or relation. The Space-
Time-Relation is only one of myriad and zillions of ever-changing Bezüge.
Cosmos is not related to Einai in an identical fashion as it is related
to
Nothing ; for this very reason, it cannot be the very same Cosmos either.
PERMANENT IDENTITY
This type of "miracle" of permanent "Identity", of absolute "Cosmos
always
= the same Cosmos", now and forever, Amen !, we only encounter in patrian
Formal Logic; we also take it into account as a simple, single relation
of Cosmos
but, as stated above, there are zillions more to be reckoned with.
Therewith we have clarified the identification process of Reason, i.e.,
what we think about when we identify anything for that matter. We are
not identifying Reason as something artificially cut off from all its
relations;
e contrario, this is precisely one of the modes of Being of Reason
itself,
Reason as such, Reason-In-Itself. Which already indicates that even
Reason exists as Reason-In-Itself a n d Reason-For-Itself.
And, Why Not ?!
Worse even : It exists as: {(Reason-In-Itself and Reason-For-Itself)
a n d
(Reason-In-Itself a n d Reason-For-Itself)}.
Similarly, when we a c t Cosmos, we can express this in
words and language
as: Cosmos, Cosmos and Einai, Cosmos-In-Itself and Einai-In-Itself,
Einai-In-Itself
and Einai-For-Itself. In short:
Cosmos-In-Itself and Einai-In-Itself.
Also, when we t h i n k , which exists as act a n
d think, Cosmos a n d
Einai, then we express this in words as the above PLUS:
{(Thinking-In-Itself and Thinking-For-Itself) a n d
(Thinking-In-Itself
a n d Thinking-For-Itself)}.
Furthermore, all these are valid for :
Existence: {(Existence-In-Itself and Existence-For-Itself)
a n d
(Existence-In-Itself a n d Existence-For-Itself)}.
Theory: {(Theory-In-Itself and Theory-For-Itself)
a n d ....)}.
Society: {(Society-In-Itself and Society-For-itself)
a n d ....)}.
Philosophy: {(Philosophy-In-Itself and Philosophy-For-Itself)
a n d ....)}.
PHILOSOPHY ANDUNIVERSITY
On another LEVEL a n d DEGREE ,
we encounter the
Diagory : Science a n d Philosophy. It exists
as a maximized
degree of Act a n d Think, or, Intellect
a n d Reason, or,
Praxis a n d Theory. As far as we are concerned, we are
illustrating Natural Science a n d
Social Philosopy, viz, a specific degree existing within the Diagory:
Nature and Society,
which again exists as a minimized degree of Essence a n
d Existence, which again exists
as a minimized degree of
Cosmos a n d Einai.
Obviously for us, Philosophy exists as:
Science a n d Philosophy.
FROM THE ACADEMY TO
OXFORD:
Philosophy does not Pay!
Ancient Greek Philosophy. The Sophists, Plato and Aristotle
all contributed to its coming-into-being ; of course, it has earlier
roots in other ex-Greek civilizations, for example in Japan, India
or China. Originally, in the Academy and the Lyceum, all current
"sciences" which are taught in universities across the globe have
been included in Philosophy; they were just sub-disciplines within
the general content and context of Philosophy. This simply means,
for example, that Natural Science (Physics) was included in Social
Philosophy; the same applied to Astronomy and Astrology. Aristotle
even included Theology in Philosophy. Anaximander of Miletus
(610-546 B.C.), among other qualifications, was an astrologist, astronomist,
anthropologist, cosmologist, cosmogonist, physicist, geologist, meteorologist,
geographer, biologist, seismologist, evolutionist, sociologist and
historian.
Thus we can note that Einai as Philosophy was relatively still intact
at the dawn
of patrian existence. Progressively, with the introduction of the
"division of labour", including all its formal logical ramifications,
Philosophy will be detonated into myriad of individual "sciences"
and disciplines; into non-related fragments, reduced to impotent
irrational spectres. In the same way as Nature a n d Society
was
split into two independent and indifferent entities, Natural Science
was divorced from Social Philosophy. Progressively, this same natural
maltreatment and social perversion was eternalized in the
educational fields, especially in "university" life; it does not matter
whether it is Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard or the Sorbonne, nowhere
a sign of the existence of the Academy Multiversity or of the Lyceum
Poliversity can be detected anymore. Philosophy itself is ostracized
to
ivory tower sublime peaks: like "Crime", it does not pay! At last,
now we know it: Crime Does Not Pay ! Philosophy Does not
Pay!
Time is Money! No Time for Philosophy! In the same way, progressively,
Politics, State Theory, Languages and Arts will disappear from the
global
university map.
This is the tragic, absurd, bizarre and macabre situation which awaits
all students in the next millennium, in the Era of Globalization. From
now onwards
the profession of a student will no more be studere
but
Pavlov doggery in her or
his specific field of specialization.