What is a medium? – translation from Wolfgang Hagen part four

Entelechea is the antonym of Dynamon, the potential. All things, including the ether are in these two modes possible. And as the light updates the Diaphanes, the transperant, it instantiates color but differs from it in that the light is the time passed by between the fullfilment of Entelechea in Dynamon. Because of this, the diaphanes can be the Skotos, the Darkness. In this sense it is for Aristotle the Diaphanes in the light of its dynamon, that is to say in its possibility.

With this understanding Aristotle arrives at the core of his thought. Now Demokrit enters the scene proclaiming that one could see an ant in the sky if

“„ει γένοιτο κενόν τό µεταξύ“ if the Intermediate would be empty. But this does not work.
“Εαν γάρ τις θη το έχον χρώμα επ ‘αυτήν την όψιν, ουκ οψεται ”
Because if you put a colored think squarely on the eye, we see nothing.
Τὸ μεταξύν. The in-between. There must be some intermediary, otherwise perception is impossible. τό μεταξύ is now truly not an element, and can be either be found in the three, nor four, nor Aristotles’ doctrine of the Five Elements. To say metaxy.

There has to be always a gap in perception – a distance of a distance – or unmarked space. This anonymous, diaphantisches – both transparent and opaque typed. A distinction which produces as a byproduct a rest. To make the Metaxy clearer one is tempted to argue with constructionist terms: If perception also means to make a distinction, than that what is seperated is by definition a product of the distinction made in perception with an unmarked space as byproduct.

[Constructivists argue: If perception would be, a distinction to
to make a distinction, then yes is always a distinction in each of these
unmarked area, an unmarked space left. So one can doubt To metaxy
to understand: as the distance, when the ex-project, which, as any distinction
his unmarked remainder produced.] google translation

Aristotle is certainly far from being a constructivist. He surely lacks the romantik ability to live in a world full of paradoxes. For Aristotle metaxy is a word borrowed by Demokrit from his mouth. He uses it to demonstrate the point he tries to make throughout his text. The term stays explicitly nonconceptually and as a loanword from Democritus vocabulary. Why he uses it has an almost mechanical reason. He needs the product created by the metaxy that in turn allows him to construct a theory of perception as he did in his one. He depends on this distance created by the metaxy which makes perception at all possible.

“πασχοντος γάρ τι του αίσθητικοϋ γίνεται το οραν”
“The sense of sight happens in that which sees suffers”

But this is the point of Aristotle’s theory of perception. The Soul is well known, and yet unmoved mover of all the physicality. But she cannot move of itself. As much as the tradition starting with Aquinas until Hegel like to see. But the point is clear in Aristotle. Empirically, the soul is in the exercise as it is triggered.
She must be triggered.

υπ αύτου μεν ουν του ορωμένου χρώματος αδύνατον
“Impossible itself but by the visible color”

The colour cannot move the soul, as cannot do air or water.

λείπεται δη ύπό του µεταξύ, ωστ’ άναγκαΐόν τι εϊναι µεταξύ
So it remains that it is done by something inbetween, in the middle ground.

Now here is the latest, is the use of Aquinas modifications in the Aristotelian text visible. Already in the place where Democritus speaks of the ant in the sky, the concept of Medium is interpolated.

“Non enim hoc bene dicit Democritus, opinatus, ‘si esset
quod vacuum medium, prospici utique certe, si esset et formica in celo. Hoc enim
inpossibile est.”

Democritus did not really talk about, when he says, that if the Space would be empty, we would see more clearly an ant in the heavens. But this is impossible.

Paciente sensitiuo fit ipsum enim aliquid videre,
Denn das Sehen vollzieht sich dadurch, daß das Empfindungsfähige etwas erleidet,
For the vision accomplished the fact that the sentient something suffers,

ab ipso igitur videtur qui est colore inpossibile
aber unmöglich von der gesehenen Farbe
but impossible by the color seen

relinquitur autem quod a medio,
da nichts anderes übrigbleibt, vom Medium.
but since nothing else is left over from Medium.

quare necesse est esse aliquod medium.
Infolgedessen ist das Medium eine Notwendigkeit.
Consequently, the medium is a Necessity.

Vacua autem facto, l non certe aliquid, nihil omnino set videbitur.
Wäre der Zwischenraum leer, so würde nicht nur nicht deutlich, sondern überhaupt gar nichts gesehen.
If the space is empty, it would not only not be unclear, but in general nothing can be seen.

Propter quam causam quidem igitur necesse est in lumine colorem videri, dictum est.
Damit ist gesagt, aus was für einem Grund die Farbe notwendig nur bei Licht gesehen wird. That is to say by what reason the color only when necessary Light is seen.

A further close reading is not necessary. It should be noted that Thomas Aquinas did not understand Greek. He supposedly uses a existing translation and draws heavily from it in his extensive commentaries. I only want to draw the attention to an error Aquinas makes in his translation that leads him tempted to say to the complet blunder:

quare necesse est esse aliquod medium
Consequently, the medium is a necessity.

From λείπεται he starts to insert his own greek “interpretation” and does so by conducts the error of translating τι εϊναι µεταξύ – given an in-between. He refers to a former sentence and missleadingly translates the terms given.


Leave a comment

Filed under What is a medium? - translation from Wolfgang Hagen

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s