SUO: Re: The Sound Of Fundering Behooves
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
JA = Jon Awbrey
JM = Jean-Marc Orliaguet
| Now, Gentlemen, it behooves me, at the outset of this course,
| to confess to you that in this respect I stand before you an
| Aristotelian and a scientific man, condemning with the whole
| strength of conviction the Hellenic tendency to mingle
| Philosophy and Practice.
How does one convey an idealization?
One strikes a pose, one acts it out
on the appropriate stage, one draws
down on a muse of fire and declaims
it in a prologue that is blissfully
free of all subtle admixtures, that
displacid concreteness of real life.
Works for me.
Jon Awbrey
JA: As I understand them, 1st-ness, 2nd-ness, 3rd-ness are abstractions
from solid realities, a matter of the aspects to which we attend
and the depth of perspective that we apply to what we observe,
nothing more.
JM, quoting CSP:
| CSP On firstness: CP 5.44
| The present is just what it is regardless of the absent,
| regardless of past and future. It is such as it is, utterly
| ignoring anything else. Consequently, it cannot be abstracted
| (which is what Hegel means by the abstract) for the abstracted
| is what the concrete, which gives it whatever being it has,
| makes it to be. The present, being such as it is while
| utterly ignoring everything else, is positively such
| as it is ...
JM: An abstraction is what something concrete makes it to be.
An ens rationis is an abstraction for instance. But hey,
if firstness was an abstraction too, it would be dependent
on something concrete i.e. something else, while being at
the same time irrespective of anything else. What you
refer to, Jon, is the firstness of something else (eg.
of a degenerate secondness or of a degenerate thirdness),
you are not be speaking about the categories themselves,
but of categories of categories.
JM: The same with secondness: if its mode of being
is that of an abstraction, then it is a already
degenerate.
JM: Finally, if firstness is an abstraction from "solid realities"
does it mean that the reality of firstness depends on the
reality of something else whose mode of being would be
existence or actuality?
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤