CHAPTER
SEVEN
EINAI : Picking Up The Threads a n d Trails
REVISION
Why do some have severe difficulties to follow our expositions at this
level a n d degree of scientific a n d philosophic reflections?
The answer is very simple. Urgently all of us need thinking and thought exercises
and training. Most of us are just used to either-or, -- either right
or wrong, either agreement or disagreement, either good or bad -- passive,
receptive, master-slave mental attitudes or mentalities. The moment that we
have to relate, to inter-relate, more than two excluding, exclusive entities,
the headaches begin. To remedy this fatal ontic situation, these brief approximations
to acting a n d thinking AND
excelling are summarized here.
This part presupposes a very careful study of the previous sections.
Now, let us scrutinize the major deliberations arrived at in the previous
expositions and carefully expiscate the essential elements of the Gegensatz
(Negation, Concept), to avoid any possible expostulations with reference
to Einai, to Thought in general.
To arrive at our Gegensatz,
at first, we explained its essential elements, Cosmos, and, Einai, and
thereafter, we existentially counterposed or couterpoised our Gegensatz:
Cosmos a n d Einai. Note: our dialogical Gegensatz is not identical
to and does not exist as the dialectical Contradiction. Contradiction is a
dialectical Category, for example, the unity and contradiction of opposites;
Gegensatz, Negation, exists as a dialogical Diagory, for example, Nature a
n d Society, Affirmation a n d Negation.
We also indicated, from a trialogical view, that in unilogics
a n d dialogics, "Cosmos, and, a n d , Einai " are Sätze,
are postulates, positions. Furthermore, we stated that "Cosmos a n
d Einai" exists as a Gegensatz, contrapostulate, counterposition, not
a "contradiction". However, for the sake of clarity, here and there,
we will also use the concept "contradiction", but understood as a Diagory.
It is worthwhile to recollect that Sätze concern Acts,
and that the Gegensatz refers to Thought.
Also, we should not forget that Sätze express Acts in Words
or Language, which we speak, and with which we intercommunicate ourselves,
with which we affirm our cosmic acts, our práxis. Words
or language do not act, think or excel for us, they are not substitutes for
these human attributes, they are just miserable tools of social communication,
that can be manipulated. To create words and language is a necessity for
communication, this is not the problem; however, the pcrux of the matter
is, how they were produced, what they serve and who
coined them: in each ruling epoch the ruling ideas. expressed in the ruling
language, always were the ruling ideas, the ruling language, of the ruling
classes, serving their indoctrination, manipulation, privileges, wealth,
accumulation and profits.
Being an expert in the German language is a prerequisite to read
Hegel’s Phenomenology of the Mind, but it is not the conditio sine
qua non to comprehend, to understand Hegel’s
philosophy. To approximate the latter, one has to think dialectically.
To understand this very writing, one must be conversant with formal logics,
dialectics and multi-logics, even with Non-Logics.
A Satz is/has a Minimum Level, Cosmos, and this can be acted or expressed
in zillions of ways, or words, depending on the specific level on which
we act, or on which we express ourselves in word and deed. Cosmos is
the Minimum, is the Satz. The rest, for example, Essence, Object, Matter,
Nature, Práxis or Deed, are all specific, not different, Cosmic Levels;
the above are Words which express these minimal Acts, but they are also these
very Acts themselves. Words and Language are not strange things out of this
world, they are not heavenly, extra-cosmic things, they are simply just as
cosmic as Acts themselves. Of course, we could study Sprachphilosophie,
Philosophy of Language, Chomsky or Habermas, but the results won't alter their
unilogical cosmic essence per se, won't even alter their dialogical
natural a n d social non-relations a n d relations in
res.
Furthermore, as noticed before, Einai naturally has Sätze: Cosmos,
and, a n d, Einai. And Einai socially exists as a Gegensatz: as Cosmos a
n d Einai.
Furthermore, thoughts are living existences of Human Existence, not of
our Human Being, hence, they rest, they move, are in relation; they contradict
each other, they affirm, they negate, they affirm and negate, they
affirm a n d negate, they neither affirm nor negate, etc.
This means that this very text is living, is alive: the concepts will change,
the diagories and triagories will acquire new connotations, they will "contradict"
themselves, counterpoise, counteract and even counter-eliminate themselves.
Thus, the only way to relate non-related acts with related thoughts is to
bring them into existence, is to interrelate them, even to surpass
them. In other words, we interrelate ( we a n d ) our Sätze
within our Gegensatz:
(Cosmos, and,) a n d (Cosmos
a n d Einai).
Obviously, even in Unilogics, as long as we stick to the relations, we
could postulate any number of Sätze: Cosmos, and, a n d , Einai, AND,
Nothing, etc. Similarly, in Dialogics, or Trialogics, within the respective
Bezüge, multi-relations, we
could counterpostulate: for example,
Cosmos a n d Einai,
Cosmos a n d Nothing,
Einai
a n d Nothing;
also "and" a n d " a n d "; "and" a n d "AND",
Level a n d Degree; Minimum a n d Maximum; etc.
All these are different/trifferent dialogical/trialogical Negations.
Continuing with what was stated above, in Dialogics, within Trialogics,
now, we arrive at the following Gegensätze:
Einai-in-
a n d -for-itself;
Affirmation a
n d Negation;
Level a n d
Degree;
Minimum a n d
Maximum;
Satz a n d Gegensatz;
Cosmos a n d
Einai.
Before we advance to the majestic diagoric depths to analyse the following:
Einai-For-Itself, that is, Einai-in-itself a n d Einai-for-Itself,
in other words, Thinking-in-itself a n d Thought-for-itself,
again, let us first make some general, pertinent, down-to-earth remarks.
Some Afterthoughts
Now, certain questions might pop up: Why all this "sophistry", this hair-splitting?
Why all this brain-wrecking, this headache? We have already forewarned our
thinkers that thinking is not a Sunday afternoon spree; it is not simple,
it exists very complicated. And, Thinking has no relation to that what is
generally known in the Patria as "having a brilliant idea", as participating
in "cool talk", as "rabbling" with a Coke on the tongue, as swinging racist
diatribes, as "Stammtisch-Gebrüll", as pub-guffaw, as gaffing and blabbing
the whole day. These belong to ideological, raw straw; to the "cheap talk"
of global pan et circenses. Many of us never ever have been taught
to think, to think of, by and for ourselves. Obviously, we were
alienated to our own objective a n d subjective
faculties, hence, thinking has become something strange, a nuisance. Thus,
here, real, true thinking is a novelty, and it has to be acquired with scientific
precision and philosophic incision.
Later, when we have completed the various sections, we will give simple
and complex illustrations to demonstrate the precision of our expositions,
their daily relevance, and their praxical essence a n d theoretical
existence in dealing with everyday problems in the Patria; for example,
with bombings, racism, fascism, terrorism and globalization. Here we are
discussing essential, existential and transcendental elements of the Human
Trinity:
The beautiful human being
a n d true human existence
AND loving human transcendence.
Thus, before we embark on the tremendous task to elaborate the Gegensatz:
"Einai-for-Itself", let us recollect some important aspects with which
we have dealt until now.
"THE TEN COMMANDMENTS"
1. In previous parts we have illustrated our Method, which de
facto is our Logical Method, is our very Multi-Logics. 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, within the general context of our Trialogics, we have
elaborated our Unilogics; furthermore, at present we are expounding our
Dialogics; later, we will proceed with our Trialogics; 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 percepts, concepts, levels,
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 is depicted
as follows: Cosmos a n d Einai, Essence a n d
Existence, Rest a n d Motion, Nature a n d Society,
Práxis a n d Theory, Satz a n d Gegensatz,
Level a n d Degree, "and" a n d "a n d", Unilogics
a n d Dialogics. Thus, if we speak about "Einai", dialogically
we always think "Cosmos a
n d Einai"; if we discuss "Theory", we always analyse "Práxis
a n d Theory". This is not "normal", we have not been taught
to think diagorically, dialogically. This is a typical example of how language
or symbols cannot express thought with precision. In a certain way, we think
various non-relations a n d relations "at the same time", not
only parallel, but inter-related. This cannot be expressed in words or language.
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 excelled 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 Práxis
a n d Theory AND Emancipy,
as Unity a n
d Difference AND Trifference,
as Act a n d
Thought AND Excel.
That is, as follows:
Note: in expressing our thoughts, we necessarily have to create some
words ad hoc, and to fill them with our own logical contents;
later they will be shaped more precisely and given scientific a n
d philosophic stringency.
5. Also, we have underlined, that on a Level, Acting is Acting, that Thinking is Thinking,
that Excelling is Excelling; but, on a Degree, that Thinking exists as Acting a n d Thinking;
and, on a Mension, that Excelling surpasses
(excels) as "Acting a n d Thinking AND Excelling".
Later we will explain what is the modal Trifference between the Triagories:
"Acting a n d Thinking AND Excelling"
AND
"Action a n d Thought 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
is complex, that Thought is an endeavour which
implies immense mental difficulties, and that it has to be elucidated as
such in words and language. Also, that Excellence finds itself on the horizon,
in the aurora, therefore, it is vague, opaque, creative,
germinating, feminine, and must be expressed as such in words and
deeds.
7. Again: We use Words and Language as Tools for Action, Thought and
Excellence; but we have to develop more precise methods of expression and
communication, of inter-relation. We have to create our very own, appropriate
words, symbols, illustrations, music, arts, waves, cyphers and language.
8. Hence, 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 focused in words and
language.
9. These explanations indicate that, logically, levels, degrees and
mensions should not be mixed up: Neither in Act, nor in Thought,
nor in Excel.
10. Finally, similarly, Sätze, Gegensätze and Entgegensätze,
which correspond to Levels, Degrees and Mensions, and also to Acts, Thoughts
and Excels, 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 really in the eating
of it.
