At 07:58 PM 24/05/96 +0200, Tibor Odor wrote:
>I have some questions and conjectures in mathematical logic and in
>physics, which can be interpreted, as a trial to formulate Heidegger's
>fundamental ontology in a precise, mathematical way. If anyone is interested,
>please let me know. In that case I send them.
>
>I strongly feel, that some of Heidegger's ideas are formalizable. Maybe,
>more precise formulation some of his thoughts can help in his understanding.
>
It would be hard to imagine anything more alien to "Heideggarian" "thought"
than an attempt to formalise it in a precise, mathematical way.
Mathematical formalisation is a fore-grounding that already determines the
nature of its objects and their way of being. It is _one_ possible
fore-grounding.
As formulaic, algorithmic, essentially pre-determined, (pre-determination in
its essence) it cannot be an experience of truth (temporalised unveiling).
As H.'s reliable disciple, H-G Gadamer, puts it "Truth and Method" poses a
choice between two options; between thinking and calculating.
I can only point you to the remarkable passage in B&T 69b (pg. 414) where H.
says:
"Thus the paradigmatic character of mathematical natural science does not
lie in its exactitude or in the fact that it is binding for 'Everyman'; it
consists rather in the fact that the entities which it takes as its theme
are discovered in it in the only way in which entities can be discovered -
by the prior projection of their state of Being.
When the basic concepts of that understanding of Being by which we are
guided have been worked out, the clues of its methods, the structure of its
way of conceiving of things, the possibility of truth and certainty which
belong to it, the ways in which things get grounded or proved, the mode in
which it is binding for us, and the way it is communicated - all these will
be Determined. The totality of these items constitutes the full existential
conception of science."
As far as I can tell, cultural studies of science (including the whole
Foucault school and Latour etc.) have been doing little other than
plundering from that passage since it was published. For me it remains the
most comprehensive _agenda_ (not method!) for thinking about our
pre-occupation with science and technology, the ongoing mathematisation of
'the' universe and the precisely formal 'digitisation' of our world.
What, if anything, _cannot_ be "precisely formalised" - that, for me, is the
question.
However, I am still fascinated and intruiged by Dr. Odor's work. Please post
it to me privately if it is not appropriate to send it to the list as a
whole. I look forward to receiving it with great interest.
Unpredictably yours,
Brendan
"Most thought-provoking in this thought-provoking age is that we're still
not thinking."
Heid
egger (WICT)
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>I have some questions and conjectures in mathematical logic and in
>physics, which can be interpreted, as a trial to formulate Heidegger's
>fundamental ontology in a precise, mathematical way. If anyone is interested,
>please let me know. In that case I send them.
>
>I strongly feel, that some of Heidegger's ideas are formalizable. Maybe,
>more precise formulation some of his thoughts can help in his understanding.
>
It would be hard to imagine anything more alien to "Heideggarian" "thought"
than an attempt to formalise it in a precise, mathematical way.
Mathematical formalisation is a fore-grounding that already determines the
nature of its objects and their way of being. It is _one_ possible
fore-grounding.
As formulaic, algorithmic, essentially pre-determined, (pre-determination in
its essence) it cannot be an experience of truth (temporalised unveiling).
As H.'s reliable disciple, H-G Gadamer, puts it "Truth and Method" poses a
choice between two options; between thinking and calculating.
I can only point you to the remarkable passage in B&T 69b (pg. 414) where H.
says:
"Thus the paradigmatic character of mathematical natural science does not
lie in its exactitude or in the fact that it is binding for 'Everyman'; it
consists rather in the fact that the entities which it takes as its theme
are discovered in it in the only way in which entities can be discovered -
by the prior projection of their state of Being.
When the basic concepts of that understanding of Being by which we are
guided have been worked out, the clues of its methods, the structure of its
way of conceiving of things, the possibility of truth and certainty which
belong to it, the ways in which things get grounded or proved, the mode in
which it is binding for us, and the way it is communicated - all these will
be Determined. The totality of these items constitutes the full existential
conception of science."
As far as I can tell, cultural studies of science (including the whole
Foucault school and Latour etc.) have been doing little other than
plundering from that passage since it was published. For me it remains the
most comprehensive _agenda_ (not method!) for thinking about our
pre-occupation with science and technology, the ongoing mathematisation of
'the' universe and the precisely formal 'digitisation' of our world.
What, if anything, _cannot_ be "precisely formalised" - that, for me, is the
question.
However, I am still fascinated and intruiged by Dr. Odor's work. Please post
it to me privately if it is not appropriate to send it to the list as a
whole. I look forward to receiving it with great interest.
Unpredictably yours,
Brendan
"Most thought-provoking in this thought-provoking age is that we're still
not thinking."
Heid
egger (WICT)
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---