SCIENCE  AND  PHILOSOPHY

         By    Franz J. T. Lee

PANDEMONIUM  BOOKS & PUBLICATIONS.

Merida, Venezuela, 1999.    COPYRIGHT: Franz J. T. Lee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    CHAPTER  FOUR

              PHILOSOPHY :   EINAI

                                        ( Part  II )

E I N A I ,  EXISTENCE

In the previous lectures, 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 a nutshell, we think about Existence.

 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.

To relate, to think

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. And, they have to be two different " sides" else they cannot be inter-related, they have to be direct opposites, counterparts, opuestos. Furthermore, they have an internal, intensive relation, an interrelation, an
 a n and-Bezug ; 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.

 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 have first 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.

Einai : Again Sätze, Postulates

Something-in-itself with no relation to any other thing, which is indifferent to other things, has a self-relation, an and-Bezug. This very some-thing-in-itself, this Satz, in the most stringent form of precision, is not even an Affirmation, it only becomes an Affirmation as such, when it is related to a counterpart, to a Negation, by means of an intensive relation, by an a n d - Bezug.

 Hence an indifferent thing and a different thing, although it may be the same thing, are not identical. An indifferent Cosmos is not identical to a different Cosmos, to a Cosmos interrelated with Einai. This Cosmos exists as a different Cosmos, and not as an indifferent one ; the latter is in itself, the former exists as element, as affirmation within a contradiction, within a Gegensatz, and it exists different vis-a-vis its negation within Einai, and it also exists different to an indifferent Cosmos- In-Itself.
 

Thinking, Thought

Now, let us begin to think, to intellectualize !

We have to postulate again ; 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, we postulated "What is", now we set, we put "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". Of course, all Sätze are Percepts, but those of Einai differ from those of Cosmos ; they form two unrelated sides of being, of the non-existent thing : one ONLY acts ; the other ONLY self-reflects its own acting ; the one is ONLY in-itself (an sich); the other is ONLY for-itself (für sich) They are indifferent to each other. Item : they are Sätze.

Sätze : Cosmos, and, Einai.

It is pertinent to note that setzen, to pose, to put, is exactly what it is. And this is what we are doing, acting now.

 In our Unilogic we postulated : Cosmos, and. Now, in our Dialogic, we set : Cosmos, and, Einai.

 Let us take a microscopic, a minimum glance, a cellular glimpse, at these Sätze.

 Cosmos is in-it-self ; it is indifferent to "and" and to Einai ; the same applies to the other two (and, Einai) ; they are also in-themselves, indifferent to each other. "And" itself only self-reflects itself as a no-relation, as a Non-Relation. In this sense, it is a Bezug, a relation, but a Non-Relation. Such relations also are, and many others exist and transcend. For example, in Formal Logic, dualism expresses a type of non-relation : A = A ; A is only related to itself ; B = B ; but A can never be identical to B, it has a sort of non-relation to B; our Non-Relation includes this type, but it is composed of many more levels ; much more about these much later.

 Now, let us take a telescopic, a maximum glance, a bird's eye view, at these Sätze.

 If we postulate "Cosmos" as a Satz, as a fundamental Percept, and if we postulate " and " also as a Satz, then logically the one is not contained in the other, neither as a part, nor as a whole. Otherwise, postulating becomes nonsense, an intellectual farce.

 The two of them are independent entities all in themselves. They have no relation to each other. They postulate themselves. WE postulate, WE act, WE affirm. Cosmos postulates, Cosmos acts, Cosmos affirms. Cosmos to be itself, cannot be "and" ; and vice versa. Now, there we have two entities in themselves, not identical to any other, but identical in themselves. This is what They postulate, what WE postulate.

 Neither Cosmos nor We can act, can postulate, can "setzen", if we do not postulate the "Satz" itself also ; We cannot act, if we do not postulate the Act, when we cannot identify or affirm the Act. This "setting the Satz" , this self-determination, self-identification, self-reflection, this Act is "and" .

 Hence, We postulate alongside Cosmos, also "and".

 But, why do we postulate more, a third Satz ? The answer should really be : "Why not ?"

 Can we postulate a third Satz ? And if so, how can it be "different" than the other two ?

 This difference is really the key to this Aporie, because we now find ourselves on the horns of a dilemma, not of a unilemma, also not of a trilemma. How do we solve this difference puzzle, especially in a world of two-by-two; of good or bad, of left or right, of god or devil ? In reality, of one-by-one !

 The truth of the matter is that we have solved the problem already : Einai as Satz is different than either Cosmos or "and". It is neither Cosmos nor "and", and it is in-it-self not indifferent to them. It is the difference, the relation, the inter-relation.

It encompasses "Cosmos" and "and" and Itself as Einai. However, to be a Satz, it is indifferent to Cosmos or "and" as Entities-In-Themselves. For this very reason, Cosmos as Satz, or "and" as Satz, have no relation to Einai, and Einai, also as Satz, not to them. Thus Einai as "Cosmos and ‘and’ and Einai" is a Satz-In-Itself ; Cosmos in Einai or ‘and’ in Einai are different ; they are different to Cosmos or "and" as independent Sätze. As we stated before, the latter are indifferent ; the Cosmos and "and" within Einai are different. This is what we will call later Einai-in-Itself, the opposite of Einai-For-It-self. Both compose
Einai-In-a n d-For-It-Self.
 
 

Gegensatz, Counterposition, Contradiction

We counterpoise, gegensetzen :

 Cosmos  a n d  Einai.

(CHAPTER  FIVE)