PANDEMONIUM TRANSVERSITY SPECIAL
No. 823
ENGLISH, SPANISH & GERMAN
***
OUR SCIENCE A N
D PHILOSOPHY AND WISDOM:
Introduction to Emancipatory Logics: A Simple Approximation.
Por Franz
J. T. Lee.
*** FILOSOFÍA
REVOLUCIONARIO-EMANCIPATORIA:
Una aproximación simple.
Por Franz J. T. Lee.
*** EINLEITUNG
ZUR PRÁXIS-THEORIE
von Franz J. T. Lee.
(ÜBERSETZUNG: JUTTA SCHMITT)
OUR SCIENCE A
N D PHILOSOPHY AND WISDOM:
Introduction to Emancipatory Logics: A Simple Approximation
by Franz J. T. Lee
(Dedicated to
all those, who for the first time in their lives want
to learn to act, to think and to excel of, by and for themselves.)
A General Introduction
Many of us do not like to theorize, to philosophize, find this simply
a waste of precious time. And, yet we will find no way of liberating, of
emancipating ourselves, unless we learn to act, to think and to excel, of,
by and for ourselves. Those that are free already, living in a free society,
of course, have no problem whatsoever anymore. Nonetheless, as we know,
billions do not enjoy this historic privilege.
One of the existential conditions, the conditio sine qua non for
thinking, thought, and theory, is philosophy. If we do not even understand
our own method in our own "madness", how will we know what we are doing,
thinking and surpassing? Towards this understanding and realization, I have
suggested the current topic. Here it cannot be dealt with in the way that
it deserves to be done, but, because we do not have other favourable conditions,
nevertheless, directly, in our chats, debates and correspondence we could
discuss some pertinent issues; this is surely not meant to torture, terrify
or horrify anybody. This is just a simple, general approximation towards
our Science a n d Philosophy. There are no strings attached,
without any hurt feelings, who is not interested, is free to delete these
notes.
Firstly, what's the reason to discuss this topic? Obviously, if we do
not know anything about each other's science and philosophy, how will we
relate, communicate, discuss and debate with each other? How would we inter-relate
our opinions about world events, terrorism, fascism, globalization? Our discussions
would just resemble the non-related world news reports on CNN. Otherwise,
it will just be an intellectual hick-hack, a mental brawl, to prove our
own ossified points, a display of how perfectly "right" and "correct" our
individual brilliant views are; it would be an eternal, dualistic, formal-logical
rigmarole, but will not result in a fructiferous discussion at all. Of course,
beyond doubt, all our previous hundreds of means of communication are excellent;
but an extra, a little philosophic magic touch won't harm anybody.
To begin, here, I will, and can only elucidate very briefly the raison
d'être of our scientific, philosophic endeavours. Why a New Science
and Philosophy? Are the "old" ones not answering all possible universal
questions? Yes, they do. We accept, affirm, identify their discoveries and
brilliance; consciously and conscientiously, we study their accumulated
ideas, theories, knowledge and wisdom.
But, even they are renewing, renovating, refreshing themselves, have experienced
- and still do -- a Renaissance, Reformation, Revolution and Globalization.
However, by affirming all these, we still are not yet negating their invaluable
findings, that express and reflect realities, the global reality, past,
present and future. With an open mind, with scholarly humility and intellectual
nobility, we learn, study and investigate them. We learn to know them, including
all their relations and non-relations. This is our "point of departure",
but we are not blinded, blind-folded, are not myopic about their eternal,
absolute affirmative "truths".
We notice that this world, in which we live and die, is basically a two-sided
universe, an either-or cul de sac ("A", "Non-A"). This universe of
the fatherland, cum grano salis, is one simple postulate; it has
two sides, but it abhors contradictions, relations. It barely can relate
its own, two inner, internal parts, this would be a contradiction ("A and
Non-A"). It basically is dancing a two-by-two dualistic tango; the dancers,
"A" and "Non-A", barely touch each other. Universal Man tries to solve,
to resolve all contradictions, to change the world into itself, into "A".
Motion, progress, development are the auto-productions, self-reflections
of its very own inner "Non-A", that "A" itself, by all Maquiavellian means
and Orwellian ends, again wants to reduce to its Unity, to its Rest, to
its Peace, to its Rest In Peace, to World Peace.
Sapiently, across the millennia Man, ruling class Man, homo sapiens
sapiens, the "Crown of Creation", has developed his own Science
and Philosophy. He operates with mental or intellectual concepts like God,
Spirit, Essence, Being, Society, Theology, Religion, Meditation, Philosophy,
Idea, Idea of the Idea, Form, Idealism, Theory, Subject, Good, Quality,
Peace, Right, Truth, Hope, Charity, White, Civilized, Developed, Capitalism,
Reason, Rich, etc. -- all qualities of the one and only universal postulate,
of "A", of its Unomnia, of its Hen Kai Pan.
Reluctantly, he developed, produces and will reproduce terms like Cosmos,
Matter, Substance, Nature, Science, Physics, Existence, Act, Action, Content,
Quantity, natura naturata, natura naturans, Materialism,
Practice, Práxis, Object, Bad, Wrong, Lie, Despair, Vice, War, Terror,
Black, Barbarism, Under-Developed, Poor, Communism, Evil, etc. -- all quantities
of the universal postulate, "A", as its changing, fading "Non-A", of its
"negation".
In spite of concrete reality, that reflects other realities too, officially,
these dualistic human values are being placed in dualistic contradiction
to each other, the one cannot relate to the other, cannot convert itself into
the other -- "we'll always have rich and poor", "everything is relative",
never can the closed, limited system "A" convert itself completely into its
very own "Non-A", into "communism, into terrorism; the status quo,
the thesis, whether in formal or dialectical logics can never be "Non-A",
can impossibly be "A and Non-A", is forbidden ever to be "Neither A Nor
Non-A".
All this, we note, study, accept and understand. We notice the limits
and limitations of such a geocentric and heliocentric formal logical and
dialectical, introvesial, controversial, universal world outlook. Idealists
depart from their single, universal postulate "A", from their "Being", mainly
from God, Spirit, Logos, Idea, Affirmation, Society, Essence, etc., and
this they call the flow of History, the Highway towards Liberty and Freedom.
Materialists also depart from their "Being", from a single postulate,
"A", from Matter, Substance, Práxis, Nature, etc. -- and this they
also call the flow of History. In the former case, Matter is a by-product,
an excrement of the Spirit; in the latter case, it is in reverse.
In the final analysis, the whole dominant Western Philosophy turns out
to be a simple Juliet paradox: "Oh Spirit, oh Spirit, wherefore art thou
Spirit? Call thyself by any other name (Matter) and thou shallst sound just
as universal!" Thus, just virtually, as virtual reality, Spirit and Matter,
Essence and Existence, Society and Nature, Affirmation and Negation, Thesis
and Antithesis, Unity and Contradiction, stand in opposition to each other,
contradict each other, de facto, they are both dualistic chips of
the same universal block.
Philosophically, an apparently third vision appeared, that often is being
treated like a step-child of human thought: existentialism and/or nihilism.
According to Existentialism, -- Germany, Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers;
France, Gabriel Marcel and Jean-Paul Sartre (personalistic), -- Maurice Merleau-Ponty
(phenomenology); Spain, José Ortega y Gasset; Russia, Nikolay Berdyayev;
Italy, Nicola Abbagnano -- Existence, not Being, is always particular and
individual, is "I and Thou", is a specific "mode of Being'; "my" existence,
"your" existence, "her/his" existence. Human Existence, not Human Being,
"Dasein", "There-Being" is always Existence as being-in-the-world; hence,
the emphasis is on Existence; and Existence is "in", is systemic Being-In-The-World!
However, although it claims to oppose idealism, that stresses Consciousness,
Spirit, Reason, Idea, or God, in the last analysis, existentialists also
just have a singular, idealist postulate, Being, Spirit -- because Existence
is just a mode, an appearance form of Being in the World. So, here it just
seems that we have traces of a "Third Way", but, its postulate is just another
variant of Spirit and Matter. Whether you call the philosophic variants Theism
or Atheism, Empiricism or Positivism, Cynicism or Scepticism, Determinism
or Indeterminism, Gnosticism or Agnosticism, they all meet each other again
in a universal, single, closed, spatial, temporal world system.
However, the most hated philosophic trend, nihilism, has much more realistic
"third way" philosophic tenets; its Ancient Greek Father is the Sophist Gorgias,
-- who generally is associated with radical scepticism, or even relativism,
-- who negated Being thrice, denying (negating) all Human
Being (Essence) and all Human Non-Being (Existence), even all human knowledge
and all human reality itself:
Nothing exists, or if it does exist it cannot be
known, or if it exists and is knowable it cannot be communicated to another.
Thus, Nihil, Nothing, Nothingness, transcends Being and Existence, it
is Neither Being Nor Existence; it is something trifferent, can be postulated
as Nothing-In-Itself. That's why Gorgias insisted that chariots do not race
across the sea.
Across the Dark Ages, in spite of the Inquisition, in various heretic
movements, camouflaged as mysticism, especially around the teachings of
Meister Eckhart ("God and Nothing is the same.") , clandestinely
these nihilist ideas survived, eventually reaching 19th-century Russia as
"scepticism" in the writings of N. I. Nadezhdin. During the early
years of the reign of Alexander II, he applied them to Aleksandr Pushkin,
as also V. Bervi did later in 1858. Finally, in philosophic sado-masochism,
he succeeded to wedlock nihilism with scepticism. In literature, Ivan
Turgenev, in his famous novel Fathers and Sons (1862) popularized
the figure of Bazarov as a typical "nihilist", a kind of Hussein, Castro
or bin Laden.
The term itself, like "terrorist" today, became an ideological ad hominem
scape-goat attack against the "curse of the time", against all those who
were acting and thinking differently than the established global status
quo, thus, downgrading all nihilists to crazy, dangerous, dishevelled,
untidy, unruly, ragged lumpen-(wo)men who hate the glorious, noble, established
tradition and social order. In Russia, it is of interest to note that "nihilism"
was precisely associated with "terrorism", and the revolutionary movements
against Czarism, eventually turned the tables and accused the very regicide
of Alexander II (1881) itself of "terrorism", a similar global phenomenon
we could witness concerning the current democratic "anti-terrorism" of the
United States.
Here is a general explanation of what nihilism is all about:
"Fundamentally, nihilism represented a philosophy of negation of all forms
of aestheticism; it advocated utilitarianism and scientific rationalism.
The social sciences and classical philosophical systems were rejected entirely.
Nihilism represented a crude form of positivism and materialism, a revolt
against the established social order; it negated all authority exercised
by the state, by the church, or by the family. It based its belief on nothing
but scientific truth; science became the cure-all for social problems. All
evils, nihilists believed, derived from a single source - ignorance - which
science alone would overcome."
( http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=57221
)
Again, we affirm, study and accept all these interesting nihilist and
scepticist ideas, with all their natural, social and historical complications
and implications. We include them in our philosophic deliberations. In fact,
as Step One, we have become intellectually "enriched", affirming Idealism,
Materialism, Existentialism, Nihilism, including their philosophic tinctures
and mixtures. Precisely this never ever happens in the global superstructure
of being eternally only "correct", "right" or "wrong", or even being just
down-right "contradictory".
We go even much further; escaping from the universal, unitary jail of
the fatherland, following the sapient advice of Bias of Priene, in true
omnia mea mecum porto style, we carry all that we have, with
us; we leave the Sphere of Universal Science and Philosophy, of Unilateral
Knowledge and Uniform Wisdom. Transversally, trialogically, we postulate
the totality of Being and/or Essence of precisely these seemingly different
world outlooks, separately, as independent, non-related, identifiable entities,
as not being derived from each other; as trifferent postulates: Cosmos,
Einai, Nothing, - as Science, Philosophy, Wisdom - as Matter, Spirit, Nihil,
-- as Nature, Society, History, - as Affirmation, Negation, Superation,
etc.
Before we proceed, just a few words concerning Satz, concerning
a Postulate. In order to philosophize, we have to put, to set, to place
Something, as premise, as principle. As stated before, the "Presocratics"
postulated the arché, hyle, hydor, apeiron,
aer, pyr, hen kai pan, sphairos, atomos,
etc.; Plato settled the issue with the "idea", and Aristotle elevated
it to the "morphé", to form, uniform, inform, information.
Summarizing the above: the crux of the matter is: if we do not think
for ourselves, if we do not state our principles, if we do not set our postulates
ourselves, then we have to be happy that someone else does this for us, then
we have to accept the principles and premises of others, without any rational
possibility of ever questioning them or criticizing them at all. And, even
if we should try to do so, then, in academic circles, we will never ever
be "philosophically correct". Into the so-called "Third World", our reigning
postulates, like the Idea or God, were exported from Europe, from Britain,
from Spain, passively we received them, while they actively destroyed all
our autocthonous principles, virtues and values. This is the reason why we
vegetate in the belief that a "Great God", a "Great Man", with "Great Ideas",
coming from a "Great Society", forming a "Great Race", make and break History.
Furthermore, on what scientific and philosophic grounds can we superate
Western, Christian Civilization, accomplish this, when we do not even have
a single original principle or proper postulate whatsoever? Id est:
how can we think of, by and for ourselves, when we adopt a pure, receptive,
passive, beggar-like intellectual attitude towards the very basics of action,
thought and excellence? How are we going to analyse world events, globalization,
emancipation?
Furthermore, how can we think and know with incisive precision those premises
which others have postulated void of our intellectual participation or rational
contribution, and how can we verify the veracity of our knowledge and thoughts
concerning these very theorems which form the basis of Patrian tradition,
culture and civilization? About Oriental, Arab, African, South American
or Southern Science and Philosophy, by and large, the world population barely
knows anything at all. In this "spirit", here are our postulates -- separate,
independent, non-related, not derived or derivable from each other, affirmative,
identifiable, in fact, identical, different, trifferent, respectively :
COSMOS a
n d EINAI AND NOTHING.
SEE OUR LOGO ABOVE!
(to be continued)
http://www.franzjutta.org/_wsn/page2.html
***********************************************************************************
FILOSOFÍA REVOLUCIONARIO-EMANCIPATORIA
Por Franz J. T. Lee
INTRODUCCIÓN
"Pensar es
sobrepasar", dice el filósofo alemán, Ernst Bloch, y Nosotros
agregamos, que pensar es relacionar, es establecer la relación entre
sí mismo y el hacer, sobrepasándose a sí mismo de esta
manera; Pensar es Hacer-Pensar, es Pensar-Hacer, es Práxis-Teoría.
Para poder ocuparnos
de la filosofía, en primer lugar tenemos que ser filósofos nosotros
mismos. Pero, ¿qué es un filósofo? ¿Qué
hace y qué piensa un filósofo? Y, ¿cómo sobrepasa,
cómo trasciende un filósofo? Un filósofo ciertamente
no es ningún sabelotodo con cantidades de títulos académicos,
ni tampoco una enciclopedia caminante, que no tiene idea de como relacionar
un mínimo de dos de sus miles de datos acumulados en la cabeza.
Un filósofo no necesita saberlo todo, un filósofo simplemente
sabe relacionar lo mucho que sabe, enriqueciendo su pensar con su hacer
y viceversa, recurriendo a sus propias potencias y potencialidades, a sus
propias posibilidades como ser humano.
Ser filósofo
concierne al hacer de un fílosofo, es actuar como filósofo.
El ser, el hacer, el actuar es cósmico, tiene que ver con la naturaleza,
con lo físico, con lo concreto, con lo esencial, con el hacer, con
la práxis. El ser, el actuar es cósmico, físico, natural.
Existir como fílósofo concierne al pensar de un filósofo.
El existir, el pensar "es" óntico, nosotros decimos: existe
ónticamente. La existencia tiene que ver con sociedad, con lo abstracto,
con lo existencial, con el pensar, con la teoría. La existencia,
el pensar existe ónticamente, abstractamente, socialmente. Trascender
como filósofo concierne al sobrepasar de un filósofo. El trascender
tiene que ver con lo que nosotros denominamos emancipación,
sabiduría, con la relación del hacer con el pensar y con el
sobrepasar y viceversa, es decir, con hacer y pensar Y trascender mismo.
Relacionar es pensar,
como antes mencionado. Es esta misma relación entre pensar y
hacer que es el pensar mismo, es decir, el verdadero pensar en el sentido
propio de la palabra. El pensar consiste en relacionar las cosas. El cerebro
puede relacionarse con cosas físicas, naturales, cósmicas, entre
las cuales figuran no sólo las cosas perceptibles con los sentidos,
sino también los actos, el hacer. Y actuar o hacer no es trabajar.
La relación del cerebro hacia las cosas físicas y hacia los
actos es un modo de pensar que llamamos intelectualizar, o sea, pensar
sobre el hacer. Pero el cerebro también puede relacionarse con cosas
abstractas, que no son perceptibles son los sentidos, entre las cuales figuran
los mismos pensamientos, el mismo pensar. Este modo de pensar lo llamamos
razonar, o sea, pensar sobre el pensar. Al relacionar el intelectualizar
con el racionalizar entramos en el campo del trascender.
De esta manera, Nosotros
- Tú y Yo Y Nosotros- "somos" triple, en cuanto somos y existimos Y
trascendemos, en cuanto actuamos y pensamos Y sobrepasamos. Hasta ahora tal
"Trinidad" sólo se le ha atribuido a los dioses, pero para nosotros,
el ser humano como un "Tu y Yo Y Nosotros" histórico, como "naturaleza
y sociedad Y historia", como "essencia y existencia Y trascendencia", para
nosotros el ser humano es tan divino como dios es humano. Siendo
y existiendo nosotros como actores pensantes y pensadores actuantes trascendemos
como seres humanos.
Ser, Existencia y
Trascendencia forman, mutatis mutandis, la esencia filosófica
del "espíritu’, de la "idea absoluta" y del "espíritu del mundo",
como tambien forman la esencia religiosa de la "Sagrada Trinidad". No
nos oponemos a esta "verdad absoluta", simplemente la constatamos, y constatamos
además, que Nosotros mismos formamos una Trinidad Humana Emancipatoria,
y mucho más aún.
El filósofo
alemán Hegel dice: "Todo lo que nace, merece perecer".
Estamos de acuerdo en cuanto que esto concierne el ser y existir lógico-formal
y dialéctico. Ahora bien, si nosotros sólamente somos o existimos
lógico-formalmente, o si nosotros sólo somos y existimos dialécticamente,
tambíen vale para nosotros la observación de Hegel. Pero en
cuanto que somos y existimos por lo menos logico-formal y dialécticamente,
entonces perecemos y no perecemos. Es decir, no sólo perecemos. Y esto
es, sin duda, un bello "comienzo".
Para actuar Nosotros,
para pensar Nosotros, para trascender Nosotros presupone, que hayamos sido
desde siempre tras la pista de Nosotros, tras nuestra propia pista, y que
estémos ya de antemano puestos en nuestra propia órbita. Esto
implica, que en nuestro afán para historizarnos y emanciparnos no
es necesario ningúna "movilización" o "conscientización"
de ningunas "masas", y que no es necesario ningún esfuerzo para "convencer"
a nadie de lo que hacemos y pensamos Y trascendemos.
(continuirá)
http://www.geocities.com/juttafranz/spanish.html
******************************************************************
EINLEITUNG ZUR PRÁXIS-THEORIE
von Franz J. T. Lee
(ÜBERSETZUNG: JUTTA SCHMITT)
"Denken heisst Ueberschreiten", sagt Ernst
Bloch, und Wir fuegen hinzu, dass Denken auch Ergreifen u n
d Begreifen, Stehenlassen u n d Mitnehmen, Ruhen
u n d Bewegen, Sein u n d
Existieren heisst.
Um uns ueberhaupt mit Philosophie beschaeftigen zu koennen, muessen wir
zum einen Philosophen s e i n, naemlich als solche handeln; zum anderen
muessen wir philosophieren, naemlich als Philosophen denken, in anderen Worten
e x i s t i e r e n. Um zu Ueberschreiten, muessen wir in Praxis u n d Theorie
t r a n s z e n d i e r e n, naemlich handeln u n d denken UND ueberschreiten,
also sein u n d existieren UND transzendieren.
Das heisst, Wir -Du und Ich UND Wir-
"sind" dreifach, eben als die wir sind u n d existieren UND transzendieren,
als die wir handeln u n d denken UND ueberschreiten. Handeln ist kosmisch,
physisch, essentiell; Handeln ist Tun,
ist Praxis. Denken "ist" existentiell; wir sagen: Denken existiert, Denken
existiert intellektuell, existiert (als) Theorie. Und schliesslich Ueberschreiten:
Ueberschreiten "ist" transzendentiell; wir sagen: Ueberschreiten transzendiert
als Emanzipation, naemlich als Handeln u n d Denken UND Ueberschreiten selbst.
Die "Dreieinigkeit" war bis dato den
Goettern reserviert, doch fuer Uns ist der Mensch als geschichtliches "Du
u n d Ich UND Wir", ebenso als "Natur u n d Gesellschaft UND
Geschichte", als "Essenz u n d Existenz
UND Transzendenz" ebenso goettlich, wie die Goetter menschlich. Indem wir
denkende Handler und handelnde Denker sind und existieren, ueberschreiten
wir als Menschen. Sein, Existenz und Transzendenz bilden, mutatis mutandis,
das philosophische Wesen des "Geistes", der "absoluten Idee" und des "Weltgeistes",
sowie das religioese Wesen der "Heiligen Dreieinigkeit". Wir haben nichts
gegen diese "absolute Wahrheit"; wir stellen sie hiermit fest, und bemerken
darueber- hinaus, dass Wir selbst eine "menschliche Dreieinigkeit" darstellen,
und noch viel mehr als nur das. Hegel sagt: "Alles was entsteht, ist wert,
dass es untergeht". Wir sind einverstanden, insofern dies exakt fuer formallogisches
wie fuer dialektisches Sein zutrifft.
Wenn Wir nun nur formallogisch oder nur dialektisch sind, trifft dies gewiss
auch fuer Uns zu. Sind wir aber zuallermindest formallogisch u n d dialektisch,
dann
ehen wir unter, u n d wir gehen nicht
unter, also: wir gehen nicht nur unter.
Und das ist doch schon ein netter "Anfang".
Um Uns zu handeln, um Uns zu denken
und um Uns zu transzendieren setzt voraus, dass Wir schon ein Leben lang auf
der Spur sind, auf unserer eigenen Spur, dass wir sozusagen in unserem eigenen
Orbit laufen. In unserem Versuch, Uns zu vergeschichtlichen und Uns zu
emanzipieren benoetigen wir keine Massenmobilisierung,
keine Anwerbung von Anhaengern, keine Ueberzeugungsarbeit und keine "Bewusstseinsbildung".
In den kommenden Essays werden wir die
obigen Ueberlegungen vertiefen, analysieren und debattieren.
|
GLOSSAR
Philosophie
Fuer uns ist Philosophie nicht die "aristokratische"
Angelegenheit einiger Auserwaehlter; sie rangiert bei uns weder als die "Koenigin
aller Wissen-schaften", noch als der Kaufhof der "absoluten Wahrheiten" noch
als der Elfenbeinturm "weltfremden Denkens". Philosophie beginnt bei uns
dort, wo wir zum ersten Mal in unserem Leben anfangen, selbst zu denken und
selbst zu handeln, und nicht das wiederkaeuen und wiederholen, was andere
gedacht und getan haben.
Philosophie existiert als unser
Denken und Raesonnieren, als unser ratio-naler Prozess. Indem wir ueber unser
Handeln denken u n d indem wir ueber unser Denken denken, stellen wir verschiedenartige
Bezuege zu bestimmten Ebenen des Seins und differenzierten Graden der Existenz
her, in anderen Worten, philosophieren wir.
Mehr zu unseren philosophischen Ueberlegungen
demnaechst
|
Geschichte
Wir sprechen nicht von der Karikatur der Geschichte,
von der Geschichte der Herrschenden dieser Welt, die ihren Wohnsitz "Vaterland"
und "Patria" zu nennen pflegen; wir sprechen nicht von der formallogischen
Totalitaet eines Prozesses, der bis jetzt "Geschichte" genannt wurde, und
der sich durch Misshandlung der Natur, Ausbeutung der physischen und intellektuellen
Arbeitskraft, durch politische Unterdrueckung,
soziale Diskriminierung und menschliche Entfremdung charakterisiert.
Unsere Bedeutung des Begiffs Geschichte
hat mit dem diagorischen Bezug Natur u n d Gesellschaft zu tun. Wie dieser
Bezug aussieht und inwiefern Natur u n d Gesellschaft die beiden "Seiten"
ein und derselben Sache, der Geschichte darstellen, dazu weitere Ausfuehrungen
in Kuerze..
|
|
Emanzipation
Gewiss hat unser Verstaendnis des Begriffs
Emanzipation herzlich wenig mit der klassischen Emanzipation der Sklaven
oder mit der konventionellen Frauenemanzipation zu tun, weniger noch
mit den "emanzipatorischen" Wolkenkuckucksheimen der Neuen Linken oder der
Neo-Rechten oder der Neo-Liberalen. Unser emanzipatorischer menschlicher
Prozess wurzelt
wesentlich in unserem modus vivendi,
in unserer Essenz, in derselben Geschichte-als-Karikatur
mit ihren spezifischen Ausbeutungs- und
Unterdrueckungsverhaeltnissen. Er existiert jedoch ueber diese Verhaelt-nisse
hinaus und reicht jenseits dieser formallogischen und ideologischen Grenzen.
Unsere Emanzipation kennt keinen "Muellhaufen
der Geschichte", unsere Emanzipation wirft nichts weg. Sie "beginnt" mit
und in der Karikatur der Geschichte, sie hebt mit "Muell" und Nicht-Muell
an. Sie bejaht, verneint, bejaht u n d verneint, verneint u n d bejaht UND
weder bejaht sie noch verneint sie. Unsere Emanzipation nimmt alle ihre Schritte
mit, hebt sie auf und ueberschreitet sich selbst.
Naehere Erlaeuterungen folgen.
|
|
Essenz
Essenz ist schlicht "was ist", ist "das,
was ist". Dies ist allgemein bekannt als "Sein", beispielsweise menschliche
Essenz ist Menschsein. Aehnliche Essenz-Begriffe sind esse, essentia, ousìa,
Wesen, Was, die Washeit, Quidditas. Dabei ist nicht eigentlich das Wort,
was wir benutzen, von Bedeutung, sondern der Gedanke dahinter, der das Wort
als Instrument benutzt, um sich Ausdruck zu verschaffen.
Wir benuetzen den Ergriff oder die Unigorie
(siehe spaeter) "Kosmos", gewoehnlich als Begriff
bekannt, um Essenz auszudruecken. Essenz
ist Kosmos, Natur, Physis, Praxis, Handeln.
Unser Ergriff Essenz betrifft also Kosmisches,
Natuerliches, Physisches.
Wenn wir von der Essenz von etwas, vom
Wesen von etwas sprechen, so sprechen wir von seiner kosmischen, natuerlichen,
physischen Seite.
Soviel zunaechst dazu.
|
|
Existenz
Wir verstehen unter dem Begriff Existenz
nicht das, was in der formal-logischen Alltagssprache sonst unter "Existenz"
rangiert, wie zum Beispiel "die menschliche Existenz" als das menschliche
Leben, usw.
Existenz bezeichnet fuer uns einen philosophischen
Begriff, der sich im deutschen Woertchen "daß" ausdruecken laesst:
Die Tatsache, daß etwas ueberhaupt existiert, ist hier angesprochen.
Existenz hat also nicht mit dem Dasein, "da sein" in Raum und Zeit (Quantitaet)
zu tun, sondern mit dem Sosein, dem Wiesein einer Sache (Qualitaet). Fuer
uns stellt Existenz das Gegenstueck zu Essenz dar. Essenz und Existenz bilden
ein Gegensatzpaar, wir sagen eine Diagorie.
Existenz betrifft Denken, das Daß;
oder die Daßheit, Quodditas, Theorie, Philosophie, Gesellschaft. Wir
benuetzen den griechischen Oberbegriff EINAI ("Sein") um Existenz in diesem
Sinne auszudruecken. Unser Begriff Existenz betrifft also EINAI, Gesellschaft,
Psyche im Sinne von "Geist", Theorie, Denken. Wenn wir also von der Existenz
von etwas sprechen, so sprechen wir von seiner gesellschaftlichen, geistigen,
das Denken betreffenden Seite.
Weitere Erlaeuterungen folgen.
|
Transzendenz
Der Uebergriff (nicht Ergriff, nicht Begriff)
"Transzendenz" drueckt Ueberschreiten, Ueberwinden, Hinueberschreiten aus,
das heisst, das Hin-ueberschreiten von einer Sphaere zur anderen. Dieser
philosophische Uebergriff beinhaltet theologische Probleme, hat aber keine
"goettliche" oder "uebernatuerliche" oder wie immer geartete, religioese
Bedeutung.
Er hat mit Raesonnieren, mit Vernunft zu
tun, beinhaltet jedoch als Vernunft Handeln u n d Denken. In anderen Worten,
der Uebergriff Transzendenz drueckt sich als WEDER Essenz NOCH Existenz im
Sinne von Essenz u n d Existenz UND Transzendenz aus (wir sagen: Triagorie
Essenz u n d Existenz UND Transzendenz).
Mehr dazu spaeter.
http://www.geocities.com/juttafranz/german.html
*******************************************************************