Peter's following questions can't get much more fundamental than that.
I'll try to answer them.
> I found your ontological and gnoseological objects based on the has/is
> differentiation, and their respective space-like and time-like
> characters, to well-express something fundamental to the ancient "logic
> of being," namely in answer to "pos he psuhe ta onta," as Aristotle put
> it.
>
> But what I wonder about, given that it so well-expresses the "logic of
> being," is whether, as Heidegger would say, the truth has already gone
> out of it. Does not the equation of Dasein with the gnoseological
> amount to remaining with the being of beings, ie with representation?
My innovation is that there are two different types of representation
instead of the "mirror technology" limited to a single _has_ type of representation
However, as you say, both types are still representations, that is to say, entities
of _ representation type. If you like, we can say that they are of
"being" type. Obviously not all entities are of representation type.
There is always something "on the other side" of any representation.
We can only ever know those things indirectly in the form of
representations. To attempt otherwise is to try and square the
circle. Nevertheless, that doesn't make it right.
I'll explain my position as intuitively as possible. I use a coin
analogy.
Start off then, with a representationof which an entity _has_. (an
ontological representation). This representation is not what the
entity _is_ as this is on the other side of the "coin." Turn the coin
over and see what you get. You don't get the thing on the other side
but merely another representation. This is a representation of a
different types to the first. It is a representation of what the
thing _is_. (a representation of gnoseological type). The cursed thing
we really want is still on the other side of the coin ant there it
remains.
There is an algebra here, but a rather odd one. . The way it works out is that .if the coin is
turned over a second time, you will find the representation of that
the goseological representation _has_ . What you have now is the
ontology of the representation of what the thing _is_. This ontology is
different from the first. You thus have two ontologies - one that
correspond to the representation that the thing has and one that its representation
has. The two ontological representations are different.
This goes towards formalising what Heidegger is effectively saying. Representations
are never the "real thing."
Turn the coin over a third time and you get another gnoseology - this
time it is for the last representation that the first gnoseology has. Once
again, the two gnoseologies are different.
Finally, turn it over a fourth time and you get a third ontology.
This will be back to the representation of what the thing
_has_, just like the first. However, it always turns out that this ontological
representation is different from the first. In other words, the
entity on the hidden side of this funny coin _has_ two
representations of the same ontological type. This is no problem. The
difference in these two representations is itself a representation
that the last ontology represents the thing in a different time to
the first. Nothing stays exactly the same and, besides, it takes time to turn
over a coin.
All this might sound strange that it takes four turns to turn over a
two faced coin. This is common in Quantum mechanics. An entity with
these characteristics would be described as having a fractional
quantum spin number ie. in our case 2/4=1/2. In Quantum mechanics, entities which have
a spin of 1/2 include such sub-atomic particles as quarks and
electrons.
However, quantum mechanics uses simple group theory and the thing
comes back to the way it was. In other words, the first representation
is the same as the last and so there are only four "faces" involved
in the process. In my case I get five.
Now here's a titbit. The great Hindu mystic Shankara was famous for
his quintuple theory with his rotating five elements. Is there a link
here? I say this in this mailing list, as there is a perceived notion
that Heidegger and Shankara had a lot in common. There are even a few
books devoted to the topic. Maybe it's a pity that Heidegger didn't
take his stuff a bit further and develop his own quintuple faced
theory of Being and Dasein.
Anyway, the above is my attempt at a brief explanation of
representational theory. It involves a coin that on every toss lands
representation side up, with a hidden thing on the other side. It
always lands head side up. However, it is a funny tricky coin as it
has many heads and only one tail.
Just a comment on the possible confusion of mixing quantum mechanics
constructs up with Theory of the Mind interpretations etc. All of this
involves a theory of _generic_ entities which are unqualified in any
way except by mutual relativistic determinations. Thus a discourse on
generic entities can seem to be talking about everything at once.
This is not the case. The generic is not about everything as it is
doubtful that everything is even a thing. Generic theory is
about anything. ie Generic theory is not a TOE (Theory of Everything)
like many physicists are after. It is a TOA (Theory of Anything) - a
theory of the generic entity, the generic Mind. This includes theTOEs
as special instances.
> And as to the speculation as to the link of care (Dasein) with the
> Stoic providence, such a link can only be forged in the light and heat
> of the "fiery" logos, when, as Heidegger would say, the truth has not
> gone out of it.
One can never get to the fiery logos so why try. However one can
get a handle on it in the form of various representations. The
metaphorical term "fiery logos" is one such handle. One can do better
than that tho'.
If I understand it correctly, Care refers to the structure of Dasein.
Let's take a look at the structure of the Stoic Providence notion.
The Stoic Providence notion comes from their logic and can be
understood by the following intuitive logical schema that I call
"Zeno's objectivity paradigm," the touchstone of the Stoic system.
Consider the four propositions.
(a) A spade is a spade.
(b) A tool is a tool.
(d) A spade is a tool
(e) A tool is a spade.
Now, I argue that all of maths and science reject the first two
propositions as being meaningless as they don't say anything. They opt
for the last two propositions and base an abstract science on
comprehension and extension.
The Stoic position is the contrary. They reject (c) and (d) as they
contain unexplained and subjective mechnisms involving comprehension
and extension. They accept the first two as
objective statements as their is no (unexplained) mechanism of
extension and comprehension. No abstractions. Everything is pure
entity. No categories allowed. Stoic logic is very spade is a spade
logic.
They are left with the first two. Drawing a diagram, and replacing
spade and tool with "individual" and " Nature" (I prefer "literal and
"non-literal" or "local and non-local") we get the following structure
individual -----> individual
Nature ------> Nature
Individual and nature are together in the first instant and also in
the second. The only objectively knowable relations are the ones
shown.
Present day science is based on a similar diagram but the arrow go
along the diagonals. They want to explain the interactions between
Nature and the individual (between literals and non-literals). These
interactions exist. But the Stoic position is that, to coin Epitectus,
"they are beyond our power" to know. So why even try. Thus we leave
them out of the diagram and build representations on what we know.
Nature and the individual are forever in temporal coherence and go
along together. Somehow it will always work out like this due to the
interactions along the diagonals. However, leave the latter part out
of the objective reasoning process. Leave unto Nature that which is
Nature's and to the individual that which is the individual's.
I call these arrows in the diagram - dyads. The individual or literal
is a dyad of "positive" type and the Nature or non-literal of
"negative" type - an anti-dyad. The anti-dyad can never be explained
in any current representation in which they appear. It is always
non-locally determined elsewhere. Aspects of ordinary positive dyads can
be represented in terms of local determinations in the same
representaion..
The "Dasein" gnoseological representation is always made up of a dyad and an
anti-dyad. Ontologies, on the other hand, are always triplets of
dyads (Hegelian triads or Pierce 1-2-3 type representations)
It is interesting to note that in quantum mechanics, these are the
only two known types of combinations for quarks - either three
quarks of different colour or a quark and an anti-quark)
Would this make any echoes for Heidegger and his structure of the
Dasein?
>
> So I wonder in what sense you would say that your category-theoretic
> approach and its "genders" remain true to Being but not only to the
> being of beings.
Answered above I think. All representations are on the false side of
the coin. This is where the terms "being" and "being of beings' lie
but one can do better with arrows. Ultimately, if one can use my
technique to provide representations which represent the validity of your
objection - which is the whole idea - then we are (as I suspect
anyway) on the same wavelength. .
PS.
It is interesting to note that there is a little area of study
called "mathematical ontology" which, working in a classical
framework, uses the term "ontology" to refer to representations. In
Knowledge Engineering AI area these are considered as representations
of "conceptualisations" expressed in classical terms of classes, sets,
relations etc. Every attempt at formal representations results in an
"error" or deformation of the intention. In this case, the error is
gigantic, as the workers in the field will admit. They see no other
way out.
There is another way and that involves representing the
error and deformation involved. However, to accomplish that you need
a second type of representation to an ontology. You need gnoseologies
as well. (You also must not use sets and categories and stick to
Zeno of Citium's objectivity paradigm)
One can read about the AI work on the web starting at
http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-an-ontology.html
Doug
Doug Moore
=======================================================
Dr Douglas Moore
Computer Science Department voice: 61 3 9479 1142 (office)
La Trobe University, 61 3 9857 9964 (home)
Bundoora,3083 fax: 61 3 94793060
Australia email: doug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
see THE NEW STOA page -Generic Science and Stoic Philosophy
http://www.cs.latrobe.edu.au/~doug/generic/generic.html
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------