Vollenhoven,
part 5 (disk 11)
The modal
distinction of thus and so and the additional distinction of this and that may
be distinguished but never separated.
A particular number always has the characteristic of number. The same is true for all other
modalities.
Now Vollenhoven
said there are connections within the modes and between the modes. The simplest case is a relation within
the same modality, for example, the relationship between the numbers 3 and 4. In the analytical, the relationship
between premises and a conclusion.
This relationship is called samenhang. There is a irreversible order, the spatial presuppose the
arithmetical and not vice-versa.
The economic presupposes the social and not vice-versa. More complex presuppose the less
complex. Substrate (all functions that are
presupposed) and the higher functions are the Superstrate. The connection between modalities also consist of the fact
that the more complex functions follow the less complex functions but they also
refer back to them, this is retrocipation. All modes look back to
the modes that come before it. A
line is always a line, it can be measured and number. It looks back to the arithmetical, but it is not to be
reduced to the arithmetical. The
higher functions take up into themselves the lower functions. The lower modes look forward to the
higher ones, this is called anticipation. An illustration of this
is an irrational number in which a series of numbers anticipate space (MY NOTE:
Knudsen admits ignorance here due to his lack of mathematical knowledge,
however I think what Vollenhoven was getting at with irrational numbers were
numbers that were used to explain a ratio: Pi, Eulers Constant, the golden
ratio, etc). In differential and
integral calculus a series anticipates the mechanical.
In all the
modalities with the exception of the highest and lowest you have both anticipations and retrocipations. In faith, there are no anticipations and in the arithmetic there is no retrocipations. Now because of the fact that the substrate and superstrate differ in man and in the animal,
there is no function that man and animal have abstractly in common. Man and animal do not abstractly share
the same functions in the psychical.
In the anthropology you always get a holistic point of view, every function
in man has a specific individuality.
In animals each function is unique to the animal and not shared with
other functions.
Vollenhoven
called a particular thing that embrace two or more subject-functions a subject
unity. Something having various
mutually anticipating and retrocipating functions it is a systasis. The word systasis is to refer to a thing in its concreteness. A systasis may be designated according to its highest function. A circle would be a spatial systasis. A man is a pistical systasis. What qualifies a man as a totality in its entire
individuality is that he then depends upon reaches out toward a firm ground of
belief in God and his promises.
Vollenhoven
and Dooyeweerd thought of man as qualified as a subject in his leading
function, the pistic. Dooyeweerd
differed later in his thought and said man is not qualified by any function,
man is free. Nevertheless
individual acts of man may be qualified modally. One of the consequences of this would mean a move in
Dooyeweerd’s thinking that mans life is ruled or that we understand man in
terms of principles in which one vests his assurance. Dooyweerd will look deeper and will try to see all
principles from a deeper background.
Man is carried along by religious driving motives.
Systasis might be a thing or it might not be a thing. He said it would be a thing if it had a subject function
that was active. Is a circle a
thing? Not according to this
definition. A rock and water are
active. The subject function of
the thing, the highest function is its leading function. Man functions subjectively in all the
modalities, when you describe the man as a thinker, he is qualified
analytically. Since a systasis
cannot exist apart from its manifold connections, it is not a thing in itself (Ding
an sich). Now the anticipations, retrocipations, the relations between the modes,
the connections and connections within the modes cannot be reduced one to
another.
No comments:
Post a Comment