In consideration of Aristotle's Categories, a definition of predication
becomes even more necessary and mysterious than in Kant's critique Kart claimed
that a predicate contained within The subject is meaningless, Aristotle claimed
that The Two were mutually exclusive in That a characteristic, quality or
condition (i. e. a subject) could not both be present in, as well as predicable
of an object. Null Hypothesis Ho=P p=t VJ There is no relationship
between a person's philosophical presuppositions and subsequent Value judgments
e. g. A monist is no more likely to adopt string theory than is a pluralist or a
dualist. Berkeley introduces a dichotomy between sensation and perception
commensurate with the dichotomy between universal and particular. Hylas says
that sensible things are only those things which are apprehended by sensory
organs, and are only things perceived immediately and any deduction, induction
or inference as to cause or occasion belongs entirely to reason. But it is it a
tautology to say things like deductions belong to reason? Philonous answers with
"sensible things are those only which are immediately perceived by sense.''
Hylas: "To exist is one thing and to be perceived is another." Compare this to
Plot inns 'dichotomy between that which perceives and that which perceives
not.
Aristotle says, in effect, that humanity (mankind) it's not "present" in a person because one person does not contain humanity. That is to say the existence of humanity is possible separate from a single individual. A colloquial interpreter would claim that this excludes the individual from participation in the class of humanity. This is the sort of quibbling that brought about the entire realism versus nominalism debate of scholasticism. Yet, in Aristotle's case it was not so much quibbling as putting some sort of brake on Platonic other-worldliness. So then mankind is predicated of the subject this man. This would seem to be a much better example of a statement wherein the predicate is contained within the subject than the statement "sugar is sweet" or the object of football is to score goals. In respect to the possibility of a priori synthetic judgments, we may be doing no more than treating words and concepts as shuttlecocks in a semantic game of badminton. The question remains whether, when we design a conceptual construct for the purposes of theory, are we ever doing anything else. From the categories of Aristotle, "Now the same relation which subsists between primary substance and everything else subsists also between the species and the genus: for the species is to the genus as the subject is to the predicate, since the genus is predicated of the species, whereas the species cannot be predicated of the genus.” First: primary substance, is this the ontological predicate? Is being a being or is being a thing? Is existence a phenomenon or are phenomena an aspect of existence? or merely its image? Which subject and which predicts which is object or, if you will, which is genus & which species? If the species cannot be predicated from the genus, where does that leave Natural Theology? Is God not present in creation because creation does not contain God? The existence of God is possible separate from creation. Creation is excluded from Divinity.
In considering the Magnus Opus of The late Rev. Alexander Hislop, The first point is that one must either accept the doctrine of cultural diffusion or postulate the agency of a grand adversary to account for convergent cultural evolution for the underlying unity of world religions is the concomitant thread of Ariadne throughout his comparison of the Roman church with the religion of Babylon to whom he ascribes the origin of all paganism and polytheism. His first Support for his Universalist contention is the dispersal of the worship of a Madonna and child. It becomes etymologically important to this universal image that The Great Mother is one who gazes and that her consort the Horned One often a serpent was “hidden”. Jacob wrestling with the angel, Beowulf and Grendel and Gilgamesh and Humbawa, are these not the same stories or the same image at least? The same shoulder. Hislop adopts an orthodox chronology that makes Job a far antecedent To Moses. But an essential underpinning to his position involves or is involved with the identification of Ninus, Nimrod and Orion, for which the construction of Nineveh as a Sumerian city in is necessary. On-The divergence between a strict monotheism and the veneration of the saints: Imagine God as a jewel and conditions arise that jewel is splintered. This would either be another exploitation of the extension of the universal into the particular in a monist pantheistic sense or a realistic materialist sense or at any point on the spectrum between. If one accepts the Veneration of the saints, then one necessarily gravitates toward either a polytheism or a pantheism. Or the congruent concatenation of the particular to construct The Universal. In the one, a gem on geometrical depiction of the formula would description ate describe an intersection not a union of the two sets (Universal, Particular a. The balefire ceremonies described by Sir James George Frazer, while more detailed, in essence agree with those of the late Reverend Alexander Hislop. Frazer identifies the Taurian Diana with Vesta. We know that archaeological evidence puts the beginnings of pattern, (and thus brick making) and agriculture north of Mesopotamia in The hilly region that was later to become the southeastern extremis of The Hittite Empire (Campbell). Velikovski identifies the Carians, The Hittites and the Chaldeans.
Therefore it becomes of paramount importance to ascertain the origins of The Sumerians. IF the technology that allowed them to build their cities is of Armenian origin, then it becomes better established that they migrated out of The Tarim basin as climate change made it into the desert it is today as climate change drove pastoralists out of The Sahara to The Nile. The key to reconciling Hislop and Velikovski is the myth of Phaethon. Syncretism was rampant in the ancient world. Tacitus and Cesar readily called Teutonic gods by Latin names recognizing the similarities in their cults. This trend continued until it was eventually used deliberately in the Alexandrine age to design the cult of Serapis. Accordingly it should not be surprising that Marduk should be called by the name of a much more ancient name "Bel". Nebo, the Babylonian Hermes was associated with The Birs Nimrod. It is interesting to note that truth and righteousness were the attendants of 'the servant' Shamash. Tammuz, the shepherd, may actually be the oldest cult. Born of incest, and also born of a tree, he is the same as Adonis. Hidden in a chest, he was also loved of Persephone. The dual association with a goddess of the upper and lower worlds mirrors the vegetative cycle as the sojourn in the chest mirrors both Osiris (also born of a tree and Perseus.
Water damage to the Great Sphinx need not indicate its greater age; it might indicate that our dating of Pleistocene and Holocene might be wrong, what? Arbitrary? The earliest Sumerian Kings ruled for multiples of 3600 years. Cyclical? Is there more than just similarity to the stories of The Caledonian Boar and the Bull of Heaven? Are the presumptions of the temporal location of the Aryan invasion of Northern India set to coincide with a Dorian invasion in order to perpetuate a myth of a Greek Dark Ages? Are there no art facts from The Dorian darks ages because all knowledge was lost or because that time corresponds to a non-existent period of history elsewhere in the world? What if those Dorians were refugees from an advanced sophisticated civilization? Was trephination evidence of an advanced state of medicine or evidence, of a particular barbarous religious initiation?
Was Karl Barth building upon a foundation laid by Schleiermacher? Upon first glance Schleiermacher appears to be a foaming at the Mouth ranting fundamentalist. But after further inspection it appears as though he was influenced far more than even he would like to admit by Fichte. And by the same Token is the development of functionalist psychology from the ashes o structuralism any mirror image of the self evolution of phenomenology from the debris of post-Kantian Idealism? But for Husserl, radical means an equivalent to Cartesian skepticism, like a red-tailed hawk gingerly picking at the marrow of his petrified bones.
Aristotle says, in effect, that humanity (mankind) it's not "present" in a person because one person does not contain humanity. That is to say the existence of humanity is possible separate from a single individual. A colloquial interpreter would claim that this excludes the individual from participation in the class of humanity. This is the sort of quibbling that brought about the entire realism versus nominalism debate of scholasticism. Yet, in Aristotle's case it was not so much quibbling as putting some sort of brake on Platonic other-worldliness. So then mankind is predicated of the subject this man. This would seem to be a much better example of a statement wherein the predicate is contained within the subject than the statement "sugar is sweet" or the object of football is to score goals. In respect to the possibility of a priori synthetic judgments, we may be doing no more than treating words and concepts as shuttlecocks in a semantic game of badminton. The question remains whether, when we design a conceptual construct for the purposes of theory, are we ever doing anything else. From the categories of Aristotle, "Now the same relation which subsists between primary substance and everything else subsists also between the species and the genus: for the species is to the genus as the subject is to the predicate, since the genus is predicated of the species, whereas the species cannot be predicated of the genus.” First: primary substance, is this the ontological predicate? Is being a being or is being a thing? Is existence a phenomenon or are phenomena an aspect of existence? or merely its image? Which subject and which predicts which is object or, if you will, which is genus & which species? If the species cannot be predicated from the genus, where does that leave Natural Theology? Is God not present in creation because creation does not contain God? The existence of God is possible separate from creation. Creation is excluded from Divinity.
In considering the Magnus Opus of The late Rev. Alexander Hislop, The first point is that one must either accept the doctrine of cultural diffusion or postulate the agency of a grand adversary to account for convergent cultural evolution for the underlying unity of world religions is the concomitant thread of Ariadne throughout his comparison of the Roman church with the religion of Babylon to whom he ascribes the origin of all paganism and polytheism. His first Support for his Universalist contention is the dispersal of the worship of a Madonna and child. It becomes etymologically important to this universal image that The Great Mother is one who gazes and that her consort the Horned One often a serpent was “hidden”. Jacob wrestling with the angel, Beowulf and Grendel and Gilgamesh and Humbawa, are these not the same stories or the same image at least? The same shoulder. Hislop adopts an orthodox chronology that makes Job a far antecedent To Moses. But an essential underpinning to his position involves or is involved with the identification of Ninus, Nimrod and Orion, for which the construction of Nineveh as a Sumerian city in is necessary. On-The divergence between a strict monotheism and the veneration of the saints: Imagine God as a jewel and conditions arise that jewel is splintered. This would either be another exploitation of the extension of the universal into the particular in a monist pantheistic sense or a realistic materialist sense or at any point on the spectrum between. If one accepts the Veneration of the saints, then one necessarily gravitates toward either a polytheism or a pantheism. Or the congruent concatenation of the particular to construct The Universal. In the one, a gem on geometrical depiction of the formula would description ate describe an intersection not a union of the two sets (Universal, Particular a. The balefire ceremonies described by Sir James George Frazer, while more detailed, in essence agree with those of the late Reverend Alexander Hislop. Frazer identifies the Taurian Diana with Vesta. We know that archaeological evidence puts the beginnings of pattern, (and thus brick making) and agriculture north of Mesopotamia in The hilly region that was later to become the southeastern extremis of The Hittite Empire (Campbell). Velikovski identifies the Carians, The Hittites and the Chaldeans.
Therefore it becomes of paramount importance to ascertain the origins of The Sumerians. IF the technology that allowed them to build their cities is of Armenian origin, then it becomes better established that they migrated out of The Tarim basin as climate change made it into the desert it is today as climate change drove pastoralists out of The Sahara to The Nile. The key to reconciling Hislop and Velikovski is the myth of Phaethon. Syncretism was rampant in the ancient world. Tacitus and Cesar readily called Teutonic gods by Latin names recognizing the similarities in their cults. This trend continued until it was eventually used deliberately in the Alexandrine age to design the cult of Serapis. Accordingly it should not be surprising that Marduk should be called by the name of a much more ancient name "Bel". Nebo, the Babylonian Hermes was associated with The Birs Nimrod. It is interesting to note that truth and righteousness were the attendants of 'the servant' Shamash. Tammuz, the shepherd, may actually be the oldest cult. Born of incest, and also born of a tree, he is the same as Adonis. Hidden in a chest, he was also loved of Persephone. The dual association with a goddess of the upper and lower worlds mirrors the vegetative cycle as the sojourn in the chest mirrors both Osiris (also born of a tree and Perseus.
Water damage to the Great Sphinx need not indicate its greater age; it might indicate that our dating of Pleistocene and Holocene might be wrong, what? Arbitrary? The earliest Sumerian Kings ruled for multiples of 3600 years. Cyclical? Is there more than just similarity to the stories of The Caledonian Boar and the Bull of Heaven? Are the presumptions of the temporal location of the Aryan invasion of Northern India set to coincide with a Dorian invasion in order to perpetuate a myth of a Greek Dark Ages? Are there no art facts from The Dorian darks ages because all knowledge was lost or because that time corresponds to a non-existent period of history elsewhere in the world? What if those Dorians were refugees from an advanced sophisticated civilization? Was trephination evidence of an advanced state of medicine or evidence, of a particular barbarous religious initiation?
Was Karl Barth building upon a foundation laid by Schleiermacher? Upon first glance Schleiermacher appears to be a foaming at the Mouth ranting fundamentalist. But after further inspection it appears as though he was influenced far more than even he would like to admit by Fichte. And by the same Token is the development of functionalist psychology from the ashes o structuralism any mirror image of the self evolution of phenomenology from the debris of post-Kantian Idealism? But for Husserl, radical means an equivalent to Cartesian skepticism, like a red-tailed hawk gingerly picking at the marrow of his petrified bones.
No comments:
Post a Comment