No. 823



Introduction to Emancipatory Logics: A Simple Approximation.
Por  Franz J. T. Lee.

Una aproximación simple. 

Por  Franz J. T. Lee.

von  Franz J. T. Lee.



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."
( )

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.  


(to be continued)



Por  Franz J. T. Lee


 "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.



von  Franz J. T. Lee


"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.




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

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.. 


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 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.


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.


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.