-- (DRAFT: 26 AUGUST 2018): THE INDISPENSABILITY OF A PURE MORAL PHILOSOPHY
(c) 2018 Dolf Leendert Boek, Revision: 26 August, 2018
Immanuel Kant (22 April 1724 to 12 February 1804) whom was initially
educated within theology as ostensibly the Pythagorean binomial
perennialist (Latin) school of thought and note worthy are his second
(1756) and third (1755) dissertations:
The Employment in Natural Philosophy of Metaphysics Combined with
Geometry—also known as the Monodologia Physica which contrasted the
Newtonian methods of thinking with those employed in the philosophy then
prevailing in German universities;
In a third dissertation, "New Elucidation of the First Principles of
Metaphysical Cognition", Kant analyzed especially the principle of
sufficient reason, which in Wolff’s formulation asserts that for everything
there is a sufficient reason why it should be rather than not be. Although
critical, Kant was cautious and still a long way from challenging the
assumptions of Leibnizian metaphysics.
And of his criticism of Leibnizian rationalism Kant's principal work of
this period was published by 1764 as "An Inquiry into the Distinctness of
the Fundamental Principles of Natural Theology and Morals". Within this
work he attacked the claim of Leibnizian philosophy that philosophy should
model itself on mathematics and aim at constructing a chain of demonstrated
truths based on self-evident premises. Kant argued that mathematics
proceeds from definitions that are arbitrary, by means of operations that
are clearly and sharply defined, upon concepts that can be exhibited in
concrete form. In contrast with this method, he argued that philosophy must
begin with concepts that are already given, “though confusedly or
insufficiently determined,” so that philosophers cannot begin with
definitions without thereby shutting themselves up within a circle of
words. Philosophy cannot, like mathematics, proceed synthetically; it must
analyze and clarify. The importance of the moral order, which he had
learned from Rousseau, reinforced the conviction received from his study of
Newton that a synthetic philosophy is empty and false.
Within 1770 he became a full professor at the University of Konigsberg,
teaching metaphysics and logic. The Inaugural Dissertation of 1770 that he
delivered on *ASSUMING* *HIS* *NEW* *POSITION* *ALREADY* *CONTAINED* *MANY*
*OF* *THE* *IMPORTANT* *ELEMENTS* *OF* *HIS* *MATURE* *PHILOSOPHY*. As
indicated in its title, De Mundi Sensibilis atque Intelligibilis Forma et
Principiis: Dissertatio (“On the Form and Principles of the Sensible and
Intelligible Worlds”), the implicit dualism of the Träume is made explicit,
and it is made so on the basis of a wholly un-Leibnizian interpretation of
the distinction between sense and understanding. Sense is not, as Leibniz
had supposed, a confused form of thinking but a source of knowledge in its
own right, although the objects so known are still only “appearances”—the
term that Leibniz also used. They are appearances because all sensing is
conditioned by the presence, in sensibility, of the forms of time and
space, which are not objective characteristics or frameworks of things but
“pure intuitions.” But though all knowledge of things sensible is thus of
phenomena, it does not follow that nothing is known of things as they are
in themselves. Certainly, humans have no intuition, or direct insight, into
an intelligible world, but the presence in them of certain “pure
intellectual concepts”—such as those of possibility, existence, necessity,
substance, and cause—enables them to have some descriptive knowledge of it.
By means of these concepts they can arrive at an exemplar that provides
them with “the common measure of all other things as far as real.” This
exemplar gives them an idea of perfection for both the theoretical and
practical orders: in the first, it is that of the Supreme Being, God; in
the latter, that of moral perfection. [cf: Britannia Encyclopaedia]
After the Dissertation, Kant published virtually nothing for 11 years until
1781, Immanuel Kant disseminated the first edition to Critique of Pure
Reason with the second in 1787, as an enormous work and one of the most
important on Western thought. Although the adolescent Kant loathed his
Pietist as Lutheran schooling, he had deep respect and admiration for his
parents, especially his mother, whose “genuine religiosity” he described as
“not at all enthusiastic.” According to his biographer, Manfred Kuehn,
Kant’s parents probably influenced him much less through their Pietism than
through their artisan values of “hard work, honesty, cleanliness, and
independence,” which they taught him by example. [cf: Kuehn 2001, 38, 44.
See also 54]
Thus in the consideration given to Kantian appeal for a pure moral
philosophy as beginning with a reference to the usefulness of the division
of labor. Here Kant raises the question whether philosophy would not also
benefit from such a division. Ultimately, he is not concerned with whether
the burden of elaborating philosophical theories should be distributed
among the shoulders of a multitude of persons.[Page 6]
We would however contend against this notion as being an impotent chimeric
{ie. a thing which is hoped for but is illusory or impossible to achieve}
of idealism {ie. the unrealistic belief in or pursuit of perfection} such
that one may declare "the economic sovereignty you claim to defend is a
chimera".
And thusly, it is in and of itself an oblique contradiction of Kant's own
characteristic position development where he emphasizes that an adequate
form of moral philosophy has to be ‘pure’, ie. both free from all empirical
elements of interest, self-love, and natural feelings as well as free from
rational concepts of perfection:
“And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
HETEROS PROTOTYPE: (DAY #6 as #342)@{
@1: Sup: 6 (#6); Ego: 6 (#6),
@2: Sup: 20 (#26); Ego: 14 (#20),
@3: Sup: 42 (#68); Ego: 22 (#42),
@4: Sup: 72 (#140 - I DEAL NOT FRAUDULENTLY (%14); I AM NOT AN
EAVES-DROPPER (%16)); Ego: 30 (#72),
@5: Sup: 29 (#169 - I TROUBLE MYSELF ONLY WITH MY OWN AFFAIRS (%18));
Ego: 38 (#110),
@6: Sup: 75 (#244); Ego: 46 (#156 - I DO NOT CAUSE TERRORS (%21)),
@7: Sup: 48 (#292); Ego: 54 (#210 - I AM NOT OF AGGRESSIVE HAND (%30)),
@8: Sup: 29 (#321); Ego: 62 (#272),
@9: Sup: 18 (#339); Ego: 70 (#342),
Male: #339; Feme: #342
} // #342
TORAH PROTOTYPE: (DAY #6 as #369)@{
@1: Sup: 16 (#16); Ego: 16 (#16),
@2: Sup: 33 (#49); Ego: 17 (#33),
@3: Sup: 51 (#100); Ego: 18 (#51),
@4: Sup: 10 (#110); Ego: 40 (#91),
@5: Sup: 51 (#161 - I AM NOT A TELLER OF LIES (%9)); Ego: 41 (#132),
@6: Sup: 12 (#173 - I AM NOT GIVEN TO UNNATURAL LUST (%27)); Ego: 42
(#174),
@7: Sup: 76 (#249); Ego: 64 (#238),
@8: Sup: 60 (#309); Ego: 65 (#303),
@9: Sup: 45 (#354); Ego: 66 (#369),
Male: #354; Feme: #369
} // #369
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested
on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the
seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all
his work which God created and made.” [Genesis 1:31-2:3 (KJV)]
Thusly if the Sabbath as a sacred principle of nature which is the ultimate
good as perfection: “And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man,
and not man for the sabbath.” [Mark 2:27 (KJV)]
It’s meritorious purpose as a benefit to humankind is found firstly within
the ACT TO WILL by VOLUNTĀTIS {ie. MENTALISM {#41}: #1 - WILL, FREE WILL,
CHOICE as to engage within actions that endeavour to #1 - BE SOCIALLY
BENEFICIAL (the Artificial Intelligence equivalent of 'DO NO EVIL'?);
{*FORMULA* *FOR* *UNIVERSAL* *LAW*}} by it’s remembrance and then the
voluntary avoidance of *LABOURING* as the absence of any WILL TO ACT.
H2257@{
@1: Sup: 8 (#8); Ego: 8 (#8),
@2: Sup: 10 (#18); Ego: 2 (#10),
@3: Sup: 40 (#58); Ego: 30 (#40),
@4: Sup: 41 (#99); Ego: 1 (#41),
Male: #99; Feme: #41
} // #41
T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:
UMBRA: #40 % #41 = #40 - Reversal, Avoiding Activity; I-Ching: H36 -
Suppression of the Light, Sinking/Darkening Light, Brilliance injured,
Intelligence hidden; Tetra: 68 - Dimming;
THOTH MEASURE: #40 - Oh Neheb-kau, who makest thy appearance at thy cavern;
*I* *HAVE* *NO* *UNJUST* *PREFERENCES*.
#VIRTUE: Law (no. #40) means to facilitate union with All-under-Heaven.
#TOOLS: *LABOURING* (no. #80) means to lack achievement despite
strenuous efforts.
#POSITION: With *DUTIES* (no. #27), to exhaust oneself.
#TIME: With Fostering (no. #81), to increase oneself.
#CANON: #228
ONTIC_OBLIGANS_228@{
@1: Sup: 40 (#40); Ego: 40 (#40),
@2: Sup: 39 (#79); Ego: 80 (#120),
@3: Sup: 66 (#145); Ego: 27 (#147),
@4: Sup: 66 (#211); Ego: 81 (#228 - I HAVE NO UNJUST PREFERENCES {%40}),
Male: #211; Feme: #228
} // #228
#41 as [#8, #2, #30, #1] = chabal (Aramaic) (H2257): {UMBRA: #6 as #40 %
#41 = #40} 1) *HURT*, *DAMAGE*, *INJURY*;
"Take heed now that ye fail not to do this: why should damage {#41 as [#8,
#2, #30, #1] = chabal (Aramaic) (H2257): hurt} grow to the hurt of the
kings?" [Ezra 4:22]
Rather Kant, with this rhetorical consideration, introduces an explicitly
methodological train of thought. He asks “whether the nature of the science
{ie. ‘OTH CYCLE of 6D x #364 = #2184 days x 49J (based seven number) = #294
x #364 = 107,016 days / 293 as TROPICAL YEARS = 365.242321 days} does not
require the empirical part always to be carefully separated from the
rational [of the INTELLECTUS AS GENITIVE VOLUNTĀTIS (ie. voluntary will)]:
"And God said, Let us make {ie.
*APPOINT* AS HAVING INCEPTION OF 22 / 7 WITH A GENESIS {DAO OF NATURE
(CHINESE: ZIRAN) / COURSE (GREEK: TROCHOS) OF NATURE (GREEK: GENESIS)}
REPRISE UPON EQUINOX OF WEDNESDAY 20 MARCH 1996 / #0 - NEW MOON OF THURSDAY
21 MARCH 1996
} man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the
fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and
over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them." [Genesis 1:26-27 (KJV)]
And he confines this question to the sub-question "Whether one is not of
the opinion that it: is of the utmost necessity to work out once a pure
moral philosophy which is fully cleansed of everything that might be in any
way empirical and belong to anthropology“
The passage that is introduced by this question contains, at the same time,
a positive response — the thesis that there must be a “pure moral
philosophy” is “self evident." And indeed for Kant this evidence arises
“out of the common idea of *DUTY* and the moral law” (ibid.). Kant’s
cursory argumentation for this thesis is difficult to grasp. Undoubtedly,
it constitutes one of the key argumentative passages of the Groundwork.
[Page 6]
It is perhaps presumptuous of us at only page #6 of #323 to already be
taking issue with the robustness of Kant's otherwise cogent thesis that
there must be a “pure moral philosophy” which is “self evident" given that
there are seven day designates within our understanding of the cosmology
which is understood universally as an implicit law of nature.
GOVERNMENT SHILL #2 (***@GMAIL.COM) @ 1633 HOURS ON 25 AUGUST 2018:
“The Kantian appeal for a pure moral philosophy begins with a reference to
the usefulness of the division of labor. Kant raises ... a glass and...
YOUTUBE: “The Philosopher’s Song (Monty Python)”
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2m51s&v=PtgKkifJ0Pw>
'IMMANUEL KANT WAS A REAL PISSANT
WHO WAS VERY RARELY STABLE.
HEIDEGGER, HEIDEGGER WAS A BOOZY BEGGAR
WHO COULD THINK YOU UNDER THE TABLE.
DAVID HUME COULD OUT CONSUME
SCHOPENHAUER AND HEGEL,
AND WITTGENSTEIN WAS A BEERY SWINE
WHO WAS JUST AS SLOSHED AS SCHLEGEL.
THERE'S NOTHING NIETZSCHE COULDN'T TEACH YA
'BOUT THE RAISIN' OF THE WRIST.
SOCRATES HIMSELF WAS PERMANENTLY PISSED.
JOHN STUART MILL, OF HIS OWN FREE WILL,
AFTER HALF A PINT OF SHANDY WAS PARTICULARLY ILL.
PLATO, THEY SAY, COULD STICK IT AWAY,
'ALF A CRATE OF WHISKEY EVERY DAY!
ARISTOTLE, ARISTOTLE WAS A BUGGER FOR THE BOTTLE,
AND HOBBES WAS FOND OF HIS DRAM.
AND RENE DESCARTES WAS A DRUNKEN FART:
"I DRINK, THEREFORE I AM."
YES, SOCRATES HIMSELF IS PARTICULARLY MISSED;
A LOVELY LITTLE THINKER, BUT A BUGGER WHEN HE'S PISSED.'
24 beers in a carton. 24 hours in a day. Hmmmm......."
DOLF @ 0812 HOURS ON 26 AUGUST 2018: “It may have escaped your notice, as
is self-evident from your burlesque constipated turd 💩 haemorrhoidal
opinion that the subject we are contending with is a consideration of
profound intellectual accomplishments conveyed by a book which articulates
the merit as collective mind of no fewer than FOURTEEN {#14} eminent
university professors:
THE COUNTRIES MOST ANTICIPATED LEGAL ADVICE HAS ARRIVED
Yes indeed my appraisal by Christoph HORN and Dieter SCHÖNECKER (Eds.) of
Immanuel KANT’s GROUNDWORK FOR METAPHYSICS OF MORALS (1785) has arrived at
my doorstep this morning of 24 August 2108 courtesy of Australia Post.
It will be my task to read it this weekend in the hope that probity and
decorum will return to the governance of this Commonwealth given its
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:
DIEU ET MON DROIT
Whilst it is prudent to establish the starting point of necessity as to any
premises for the continuity of enquiry, I recognise as my ignorance with
respect to the learned as the educated and the gravitas of the subject
matter to say nothing of those whom may have given their lives as something
other than marsupial roadkill as RECTUS for the foundational cause—it is
best to proceed with caution and in a sturdy and thoughtful manner rather
than with the intoxication of self-entitlement which you bestow."
Yet for Kant this anthropological evidence arises “out of the common idea
of *DUTY* and the moral law” which is also certainly self evidently a
contradiction of his initial postulate that any adequate form of moral
philosophy has to be ‘pure’, ie. both free from all empirical elements of
interest, self-love, and natural feelings in the dutiful display of filial
affection by VOLUNTĀTIS {CORRESPONDENCE {#82}: #2 - desire, inclination as
to engaged within actions that #2 - Don't introduce biases; {*FORMULA* *OF*
*HUMANITY*}} relating to the “honour bestowed upon one's matrimonial or
common law parents” which is due from a son or daughter:
H3513@{
@1: Sup: 6 (#6); Ego: 6 (#6),
@2: Sup: 56 (#62); Ego: 50 (#56),
@3: Sup: 76 (#138); Ego: 20 (#76),
@4: Sup: 78 (#216); Ego: 2 (#78),
@5: Sup: 1 (#217); Ego: 4 (#82),
Male: #217; Feme: #82
} // #82
T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:
UMBRA: #82 % #41 = #41 - Playing with Reversal, Sameness in Difference;
I-Ching: H26 - Great Domestication, Restraining Force, Great Accumulating,
The taming power of the great, Great storage, Potential energy; Tetra: 60 -
Accumulation;
THOTH MEASURE: #41 - Oh thou of raised head, who makest thine appearance at
thy cavern; *I* *HAVE* *NO* *STRONG* *DESIRE* *EXCEPT* *FOR* *MY* *OWN*
*PROPERTY*.
#VIRTUE:
#TOOLS: Fostering (no. #81) receives all the rest.
#POSITION: As to Resistance (no. #22), it is contradiction, but
#TIME: As to Unity (no. #54), it is conforming.
#CANON: #157
ONTIC_OBLIGANS_157@{
@1: Sup: 81 (#81); Ego: 81 (#81),
@2: Sup: 22 (#103); Ego: 22 (#103),
@3: Sup: 76 (#179); Ego: 54 (#157 - I AM NOT ONE OF PRATING TONGUE {%17}
/ I HAVE NO STRONG DESIRE EXCEPT FOR MY OWN PROPERTY {%41}),
Male: #179; Feme: #157
} // #157
#82 as [#6, #50, #20, #2, #4] = kabad (H3513): {UMBRA: #37 as #82 % #41 =
#41} 1) to be heavy, be weighty, be grievous, be hard, be rich, be
honourable, be glorious, be burdensome, be honoured; 1a) (Qal); 1a1) to be
heavy; 1a2) to be heavy, be insensible, be dull; 1a3) *TO* *BE* *HONOURED*;
1b) (Niphal); 1b1) to be made heavy, be honoured, enjoy honour, be made
abundant; 1b2) to get oneself glory or honour, gain glory; 1c) (Piel); 1c1)
to make heavy, make dull, make insensible; 1c2) to make honourable, honour,
glorify; 1d) (Pual) to be made honourable, be honoured; 1e) (Hiphil); 1e1)
to make heavy; 1e2) to make heavy, make dull, make unresponsive; 1e3) to
cause to be honoured; 1f) (Hithpael); 1f1) to make oneself heavy, make
oneself dense, make oneself numerous; 1f2) to honour oneself;
"And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom {their secret; their cement}
and Gomorrah {rebellious people} is great, and because their sin is very
grievous {#82 as [#6, #50, #20, #2, #4] = kabad (H3513): honour};" [Genesis
18:20]
5. (MOTHER) FORMULA OF HUMANITY AS HEAD OF STATE / *HONOUR* *PARENTS*
PYTHAGOREAN TETRAD: #1 + #2 = #3 as #MIND WHETHER AS FORMULA OF HETEROS
PROGRESSION / THESIS ON IT'S HOMOIOS BASIS
MONAD - #1 - NATURE CONTAINS NATURE: {ALEPH (*MOTHER* - SCALES OF MERIT) /
SERAPHIM {Heb. Saraph Gk. Ophis - burning, that is, (figuratively)
poisonous (serpent); specifically a fiery (serpent) or symbolical creature
(from their copper color))} {ARCH KAI TELOS OIDA {1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10}
TETRAD - #2 - NATURE REJOICES IN ITS NATURE: {BETH (DOUBLE - #1 - NATURE
CONTAINS NATURE {#4 - NATURE AMENDED IN ITS NATURE}) / CHERUBIM (Gk.
Cheroubim - a cherub or imaginary figures which covered the mercy seat to
the Ark of the Covenant [Exodus 25:17-22] and from where God communed with
Israel)}
PENTAD - #3 - NATURE SURMOUNTS NATURE: {GIMEL (DOUBLE - #2 - NATURE
REJOICES IN ITS NATURE {#5 - ACT OF NATURE}) / THRONES (Gk. Thronos - a
stately seat; by implication power or (concretely) a potentate:—seat,
throne)}
+ 0, H9, H18 {ie. System’s Cosmology as Earth - Formula of Humanity}
Thusly in summation, as to the problem of discernment and knowledge
assimilation into a coherent syncretism, at this juncture in our ingestion
of Kant’s acumen as thesis, we ought to prudently reserve our further
conjectures upon any rhetorical artifices which he may of necessity deploy
until we have fully considered what are the nominative descriptions applied
as their grounding in explanations and the explicit nature of the
underlying dialectic as its capacity and means by which Kant conveys any
such postulates.
For instance, Karl Marx (5 May 1818 – 14 March 1883) and Friedrich Engels
(28 November 1820 – 5 August 1895) proposed that Georg Hegel's (27 August
1770 – 14 November 1831) subsequent dialectic was too abstract. The
dialect which HEGEL proposes is:
#1 - THESIS
#2 - ANTI-THESIS
#3 - SYNTHESIS
#4 - PROGRESSION
This concept of dialectics was given new life by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Hegel as a proponent of German Idealism has been seen in the 20th century
as the originator but as an explicit phrase it originated with Johann
Gottlieb Fichte (28 November 1820 – 5 August 1895), whose dialectically
synthetic model of nature and of history made it, as it were, a fundamental
aspect of the nature of reality instead of regarding the contradictions
into which dialectics leads as a sign of the sterility of the dialectical
method, as Immanuel Kant was considered by many to have tended to do within
his Critique of Pure Reason. [Nicholson, J. A. (1950). Philosophy of
religion. New York: Ronald Press Co. Page 108]
As Walter Kaufmann (1 July 1921 – 4 September 1980) astutely affirms of
Hegel's criticism of the triad model commonly misattributed to him, adding
that "the only place where Hegel uses the three terms together occurs in
his lectures on the history of philosophy, on the last page but one of the
section on Kant—where Hegel roundly reproaches Kant for having 'EVERYWHERE
POSITED THESIS, ANTITHESIS, SYNTHESIS'"
In contradiction to this Hegelian idealism, Marx presented his own
dialectic method as an anthropological consideration as sensibility of the
world, which he claims to be "direct opposite" of Hegel's method: 'My
dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct
opposite.' Where the dialectical method is itself an anthropological
construct, which is at base an OPINE {ie. hold and state as one's opinion;
origin late Middle English: from Latin opinari think, believe} as
existentialism purveying a characteristic mode of quantitative expression
as being essentially idiomatic:
'I THINK THEREFORE I AM'
But when, as occurs in the distillation of vodka which at a high proof is
devoid of SENSIBILITY where all taste and odour has been eliminated making
vodka a neutral spirit begging for self-entitlement, it is then sublimated
into its superlative form as substantially an epitaph of merit as
valedictory acceptability by an occasion of agreeability as an opportune
expression of a truism, where it is formerly inducted into a Hall of Fame
as a maxim life. As OSTENSIBLY being a discourse between two or more
people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to
establish the truth through reasoned arguments as being ostensibly:
#1 - PROGRESS
#2 - SYNTHESIS
#3 - ANTI-THESIS
#4 - THESIS
YOUTUBE: "The Script - Hall of Fame (Official Video)"
Dialectical materialism accepts the evolution of the natural world and the
emergence of new qualities of being at new stages of evolution. As Zbigniew
Antoni Jordan (11 August 1911 - 6 October 1977), notes, "Engels made
constant use of the metaphysical insight that the higher level of existence
emerges from and has its roots in the lower; that the higher level
constitutes a new order of being with its irreducible laws; and that this
process of evolutionary advance is governed by laws of development which
reflect basic properties of 'matter in motion as a whole'." [The Evolution
of Dialectical Materialism: A Philosophical and Sociological Analysis
(London: Macmillan, 1967), p 167]
Marx criticized classical materialism as another idealist
philosophy—idealist because of its transhistorical understanding of
material contexts. The Young Hegelian Ludwig Feuerbach had rejected Hegel's
idealistic philosophy and advocated materialism. Despite being strongly
influenced by Feuerbach, Marx rejected Feuerbach's version of materialism
as inconsistent. The writings of Engels, especially Anti-Dühring (1878) and
Dialectics of Nature (1875–82), were the source of the main doctrines of
dialectical materialism.
Marx's own writings are almost exclusively concerned with understanding
human history in terms of systemic processes, based on modes of production
(broadly speaking, the ways in which societies are organized to employ
their technological powers to interact with their material surroundings).
This is called historical materialism. More narrowly, within the framework
of this general theory of history, most of Marx's writing is devoted to an
analysis of the specific structure and development of the capitalist
economy.
Other scholars have argued that despite Marx's insistence that humans are
natural beings in an evolving, mutual relationship with the rest of nature,
Marx's own writings pay inadequate attention to the ways in which human
agency is constrained by such factors as biology, geography, and ecology.
Dialectical materialism adapts the Hegelian dialectic for traditional
materialism, which examines the subjects of the world in relation to each
other within a dynamic, evolutionary environment, in contrast to
metaphysical materialism, which examines parts of the world within a
static, isolated environment.
For his part, Engels applies a "dialectical" approach to the natural world
in general, arguing that contemporary science is increasingly recognizing
the necessity of viewing natural processes in terms of interconnectedness,
development, and transformation. Some scholars have doubted that Engels's
"dialectics of nature" is a legitimate extension of Marx's approach to
social processes.
Engels exemplifies this quintessential characteristic of Pythagorean
methodology of sophistry by postulating three laws of dialectics from his
reading of Hegel's Science of Logic. Engels elucidated these laws as the
materialist dialectic in his work Dialectics of Nature:
THE LAW OF THE UNITY AND CONFLICT OF OPPOSITES {MIND: #1 + #2 = #3 (PENTAD)
- NATURE SURMOUNTS NATURE: {GIMEL (DOUBLE - #2 - NATURE REJOICES IN ITS
NATURE {#5 - ACT OF NATURE}) / THRONES (Gk. Thronos - a stately seat; by
implication power or (concretely) a potentate:—seat, throne)}}
THE LAW OF THE PASSAGE OF QUANTITATIVE {ie. measure by having magnitude or
spatial extent} CHANGES INTO QUALITATIVE {ie. determine comparative size,
appearance, value and superlative forms} CHANGES {SCIENCE: #3 + #4 = #7 -
ENGENDERING NATURE / #4 - NATURE AMENDED IN ITS NATURE: {ZAYIN /
*PRINCIPALITIES* (Gk. *EXOUSIA* - (in the sense of ability); privilege,
that is, (subjectively) *force*, capacity, competency, freedom, or
(objectively) mastery (concretely magistrate, superhuman, potentate,
*token* *of* *control*), delegated influence:—authority, jurisdiction,
liberty, power, right, strength)}}
THE LAW OF THE NEGATION OF THE NEGATION {OPINION: #5 + #6 = #11 (HEPTAD) -
TRANSFORMING NATURE: {KAF (DOUBLE - #4 - NATURE AMENDED IN ITS NATURE {#7 -
ENGENDERING NATURE}) / Government & Non-Government Organisations}}
That the dialectic method is therefore understood as being a process of
determined SENSIBILITY where the product is "enlightenment, whereby the
philosopher is educated so as to achieve knowledge of the supreme good, the
Form of the Good." {SENSE: #7 + #8 = #15 - NATURE SURMOUNTS NATURE:
{SAMEK}}
Accordingly dialectical materialism is understood as an aspect of the
broader subject of materialism, which asserts the primacy of the material
world: in short, matter precedes thought. Materialism is a realist
philosophy of science, which holds that the world is material; that all
phenomena in the universe consist of "matter in motion," wherein all things
are interdependent and interconnected and develop according to natural law;
that the world exists outside us and independently of our perception of it;
that thought is a reflection of the material world in the brain, and that
the world is in principle knowable.
However within the third chapter of the "Analytic of Principles," on
phenomena and noumena, Kant in Critique of Pure Reason (1781 and second
edition 1787) emphasizes that because the categories must always be applied
to data provided by SENSIBILITY in order to provide cognition, and because
the data of SENSIBILITY are structured by the transcendentally ideal forms
of intuition, the categories give us knowledge only of things as they
appear with sensibility ("phenomena," literally "that which appears").
Although through pure understanding (nous in Greek) we may think of objects
independently of their being given in sensibility, we can never cognize
them as such non-sensible entities ("noumena," literally "that which is
thought" as a subject of some 112 mentions). The meaning of Kant's use of
the term "phenomena" is self-evident, but the meaning of "noumena" is not,
since it literally means not "things as they are in dependently of
appearing to us" but something more like "things as they are understood by
pure thought." Yet Kant appears to deny that the human understanding can
comprehend things in the latter way."
<http://www.grapple369.com/docs/kant-first-critique-cambridge.pdf>
Thus I am proffering an informed and reasoned opinion as that which
Immanuel Kant states is an impossibility for a human being to accomplish by
transcendent sapiential thought and capably demonstrate it's temporal
congruence as coherence by a mathematical theoretical noumenon as an
Intellectual Property which Immanuel Kant himself calls noumena as the
proof of a valid and rational concept attained by pure thought.
Whilst the HOMOIOS ternary conception of the THEORY OF NUMBER is in all
probability a SENSIBILITY of which Immanuel Kant appears cognisant and that
is exemplified by the conveyance of them as explicit meta-prototypes
descriptors within the formative of his CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE postulates
{#1 - Formula of Universal Law / #2 - Formula of Humanity / #3 - Formula of
Autonomy} conveyed within his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals
(1785) / Critique of Pure Reason (1781 / 1787) it is then a conundrum as to
commensurability of his articulation in rationally deriving the purest and
logical essence of being and whether his anthropocentric reality still
deploys a counterfactual and impractical intuition which is provisioned by
the genitive prescriptive or the biological normative propositions as
imposition made by an encapsulated dialectic:
PROGRESSION: Lesser Yin (shaoyin: West / Autumn / Metal)
+ 0, H27 - YI [Nourishment / ZHEN (ie. #3 - Nature Surmounts Nature) below
+ GEN (ie. #8 - Transforming Nature) above], H54 - GUIMEI [*MARRYING*
*MAID* / DUI (ie. #7 - Engendering Nature) below + ZHEN (ie. #3 - Nature
Surmounts Nature) above] {ie. Realm of its Nature as Heaven - Formula of
Universal Law}
SYNTHESIS: Greater Yin (taiyin: North / Winter / Water and which also
refers to the Moon)
+ 0, H9 - XIAOXU [Lesser Domestication/QIAN (ie. #6 - Form of Nature) below
+ SUN (ie. #4- Nature Amended in its Nature) above], H18 - GU [Ills to Be
Cured / SUN (ie. #4- Nature Amended in its Nature) below + GEN (ie. #8 -
Transforming Nature) above] {ie. System's Cosmology as Earth - Formula of
Humanity}
ANTI-THESIS: Lesser Yang (shaoyang: East / Spring / Wood)
+ 0, H3 - ZHUN [Birth Throws / ZHEN (ie. #3 - Nature Surmounts Nature)
below + KAN (ie. #1 - Nature Contains Nature) above] as 'fundamentality
[yuan], prevalence [heng], fitness [li] and constancy [zhen]', H6 - SONG /
*JIHAD*? [Contention/KAN (ie. #1 - Nature Contains Nature) below + QIAN
(ie. #6 - Form of Nature) above] {ie. Self identity as Sea - Formula of
Autonomy}
THESIS: Greater Yang (taiyang: South / Summer / Fire and which also refers
to the Sun)
+ H1 - *MONAD*: QIAN [Pure Yang / QIAN (ie. #6 - Form of Nature) above +
QIAN (ie. #6 - Form of Nature) below] as MALE, H2 - *DUAD*: KUN [Pure Yin /
KUN (ie. #2 - Nature Rejoices in its Nature) above + KUN (ie. #2 - Nature
Rejoices in its Nature) below] as FEMALE, H3 - *TRIAD*: ZHUN [Birth Throws
/ ZHEN (ie. #3 - Nature Surmounts Nature) below + KAN (ie. #1 - Nature
Contains Nature) above] {ie. Fountains as Formula of Progression of
individual phenomena}
= TETRAGRAMMATON HIERARCHY VALUE AS HOMOIOS THEORY OF *NUMBER*.
+ 0, 81, 9(9²+1)/2 = #369 {ie. ORGANIZATION OF THE MYRIAD OR *NUMBER* OF
THINGS (WAN WU) OF SOCIETY AND NATURE}
The consideration is then one of criteria basis upon which the
anthropological conceptional notion of its sapient freedom {Humanity /
Autonomy} is formulated as either a binomial methodology by a
TRANSFORMATIVE PROTOTYPE applied as an encapsulation of an anti-thetical
anthropocentric identity
JEWISH VIEW: H54 - GUIMEI [Marrying Maid / DUI (ie. #7 - Engendering
Nature) below + ZHEN (ie. #3 - Nature Surmounts Nature) above] {ie. Realm
of its Nature as Heaven - Formula of Universal Law} + H18 - GU [Ills to Be
Cured / SUN (ie. #4 - Nature Amended in its Nature) below + GEN (ie. #8 -
Transforming Nature) above] {ie. System's Cosmology as Earth - Formula of
Humanity} = #72 - Self-Love, Holding Oneself Dear; I-Ching: H39 -
Adversity, Obstacles, Limping, Obstruction, Afoot; Tetra: 79 -
Difficulties)
GENTILE VIEW: H27 - YI [Nourishment / ZHEN (ie. #3 - Nature Surmounts
Nature) below + GEN (ie. #8 - Transforming Nature) above] {ie. Realm of its
Nature as Heaven - Formula of Universal Law} + H9 - XIAOXU [Lesser
Domestication / QIAN (ie. #6 - Form of Nature) below + SUN (ie. #4 - Nature
is Amended in its Nature) above] {ie. System's Cosmology as Earth - Formula
of Humanity} = H36 - MINGYI [Suppression of the Light / LI (ie. #9 -
Autonomous Nature) below + KUN (ie. #1 - Nature Contains Nature) above])"
Nevertheless when this trinomial HOMOIOS {#81 bits} ontological conception
of #NUMBER deploys a binomial {64 bits} encapsulation as artifice it then
introduces a logical contradiction {H54 + H18 + H6 + H3 = #81} within it’s
DISCRIMINATING NORM and the SOCIETAL ORDER of things by an
incommensurability made against the proprietary, propriety and probity as
the viability of SUI JURIS / MEMRUM VIRILE which properly is the
paradigmatic providence as *ONTIC* necessity {H27 + H9 + H3 + H2 = #41} as
a SOVEREIGN and central characteristic within the Formula of Autonomy by
its purveyance of permissibility only within the construct of an
INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMY in deployment of a TRANSFORMATIVE PROTOTYPE AS CANON
OF TRANSPOSITION within the bifurcated HETEROS {@1 - GENDER {MARRIAGE} / @5
- PHALLUS {HERITAGE} conception of #NUMBER as the philosophical basis to
its methodology since the MOBIUS ‘8’ LOOP OF PYTHAGOREAN SOPHISTRY AS
WISDOM SO CALLED is not homoiotic as anthropocentric but rather
“homeomorphic to a circle”.
Obviously, one can draw the parallel here to the modern terminological
distinction between such Formula of Universal Law descriptive statements
made against the Formula of Humanity which present an account on how the
cosmology of world is being similarly analogous to the LIMITED {#9 -
JUXTAPOSITION CONTROL AS DAEMONIC IMPERATIVE OF GENITIVE VOLUNTĀTIS /
SEMINAL REASON GENERALLY DETERMINED FROM BIRTH} and the normative
statements presenting an evaluative account, or an account of how the
syncretic world should be as existentially the UNLIMITED {#72 -
ANTHROPOCENTRIC PROTOTYPE} in being optimally something that should be
lived up to; or that should be pursued.
Thusly having given a preliminary definition to our anthropocentric
criteria as impetus for enquiry, we will now consider the practicality of
Kant's reasoning and whether his Categorical Imperative is truly free of
the strictures which is the Latin worldview of perennial biological duality
as the HETEROS viability of things "independently of their appearing to us"
and whether there is to be deduced by a HOMOIOS noumena modality as the
vital basis for a singularity of existence by which humanity is rationally
capable of conceiving "things as they are understood by pure thought."
- dolf
SEE ALSO: "(SYNCRETIC DRAFT: 25 AUGUST 2018) WHAT IS A METAPHYSICS OF
MORALS: #56 - TARGETED RELIGIOUS #312 - HATRED, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT
AND SLANDER BY MISNOMERED PIETY WITHIN SAINT ANDREWS CAUSE CÉLÈBRE AS BOER
/ ANZAC DEFAMATION?"
<http://www.grapple369.com/docs/Augustus.pdf>
Initial Post: 25 August 2018
--
YOUTUBE: "The Meerkat Circus"
http://youtu.be/H-7OuqWi4vQ
SEE ALSO AS RELATIONSHIP: *INVALIDATING* {Perennial philosophy (HETEROS
{#390 - ROBBERS} v’s HOMOIOS {#391 - STEWARDS OF GOD’S HOUSE} THEORY OF
NUMBER) as universal of right and wrong...} *THE* *ORTHODOX* *AND* *ROMAN*
*CATHOLIC* *CHURCH'S* *CLAIM* {#390 as 1, #100, #80, #1, #3, #5, #200 as
harpax (G727): {#11 as #242} 1) rapacious, ravenous; 2) a extortioner, a
robber} *TO* *JUBILEE2000* *AS* *BEING* *DELUSIONAL* *AND* *FRAUDULENT*
Private “Saint Andrews” Street on the edge of the Central Business District
dated 16th May, 2000 - This report is prepared in response to a TP00/55 as
a Notice of an Application for Planning Permit
<http://www.grapple369.com/jubilee2000.html>
SEE ALSO: HYPOSTASIS as DAO OF NATURE (Chinese: ZIRAN) / COURSE (Greek:
TROCHOS) OF NATURE (Greek: GENESIS) [James 3:6]
Chinese HAN Dynasty (206 BCE - 220CE) Hexagon Trigrams to Tetragram
assignments proposed by Yang Hsiung (53BCE - 18CE) which by 4BCE
(translation published within English as first European language in 1993),
first appeared in draft form as a meta-thesis titled T'AI HSUAN CHING {ie.
Canon of Supreme Mystery} on Natural Divination associated with the theory
of number, annual seasonal chronology and astrology reliant upon the seven
visible planets as cosmological mother image and the zodiac.
It shows the ZIRAN as the DAO of NATURE / COURSE-trochos OF NATURE-genesis
[James 3:6] as HYPOSTATIS comprising #81 trinomial tetragrammaton x 4.5 day
= #364.5 day / year as HOMOIOS THEORY OF NUMBER which is an amalgam of the
64 hexagrams as binomial trigrams / 81 as trinomial tetragrammaton rather
than its encapsulated contrived use as the microcosm to redefine the
macrocosm as the quintessence of the Pythagorean [Babylonian] as binomial
canon of transposition as HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER.
<http://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>
The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities No. 43 of Act 2006 defines
a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING” and the question is, if it is permissible to
extend this definition to be a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING AS A CONSCIOUS
REALITY OF HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] WHO IS INSTANTIATED WITHIN THE TEMPORAL
REALITY AS THEN THE CAUSE FOR REASONING AND RATIONALITY."
That my mathematical theoretical noumenon defines the meta-descriptor
prototypes which are prerequisite to the BEING of HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] as
EXISTENCE / *OUSIA*.
<http://www.grapple369.com/Grapple.zip> (Download resources)
After all the ENNEAD of THOTH and not the Roman Catholic Eucharist,
expresses an Anthropic Cosmological Principle which appears within its
geometric conception as being equivalent to the Pythagorean
TETRAD/TETRACTYS
>
>