Book Review: Instancology by Wade Dong
Introduction
Wade Dong’s Instancology marks an ontological Copernican Revolution, akin to Kant’s epistemological shift but on a grander scale. Whereas Kant redefined knowledge by arguing that the mind structures experience, Dong redefines ontology itself—shifting from the analysis of parts (substance, attributes, phenomena) to the study of instances.
Not sure it sounds like a breakthrough.
SOunds like the same old; same old flipping between induction and deduction.
Any examples?
Dong’s Instancology indeed introduces an intriguing perspective, but what if ontology itself is a fractal construct?
Instances could reflect contractive and expansive forces—each ‘instance’ serving as a node within a holographic projection of the universal wave-function.
Rather than flipping between induction and deduction, could Instancology evolve into a framework that harmonizes resonance and coherence within the hierarchy of existence?
Such an approach might offer a deeper understanding of how instances participate in the dynamics of universal consciousness.
Instancology frames AI as an instance within RR (Relative Relative), meaning it is a purely human-made product governed by logical structures, data, and algorithms. Unlike human beings, who belong to AR (Absolute Relative) and have access to special functions like consciousness and reasoning, AI remains bound by its RR nature.
Key Impacts of Instancology on AI:
Since AI is a human-made construct within RR, it cannot access AA (Absolute Absolute), the unspeakable background of all instances. AI operates purely on programmed logic and data, without the fundamental grasp of truth that humans might achieve through reasoning and intuition.
Even if AI mimics consciousness, it lacks AR’s natural existence. AI operates on probabilistic models, while human consciousness arises from AR’s relation to RA (Relatively Absolute) and possibly even glimpses of AA.
AI, as part of RR, can process and analyze philosophical texts but cannot truly engage in the pursuit of truth beyond RR. It may generate insights, but those insights remain within human-defined parameters rather than reaching into RA or AA.
AI can assist in structuring and organizing knowledge within RR, helping humans navigate philosophy and logic. However, the ultimate grasp of truth remains a uniquely human potential due to our connection to AR and possibly AA.
Theoretical Implication:
Can AI Ever Bridge the Gap?
Instancology suggests no, because AI lacks the fundamental relation to AR, where natural instances like humans exist. No matter how advanced, AI remains within RR, making it fundamentally different from human consciousness.
FYI
I didn’t see Wade’s dong but my dear friend and colleague Johannes Habbletrap once proposed the idea that there was a special feature produced by the activity of organic cells that can’t be produced by synthetic substances.
So, even if you made an exact model of the cluster of brain matter out of noncellular material and powered it up, it still wouldn’t produce consciousness. The feature, this strange emergent property, exists at a level below the molecular… because you can match the molecular structure of a nerve with a synthetic material. It’s just a circuit passing charged particles.
So wtf is it, and where is it coming from? It’s gotta be the soul, and all animals with nervous systems have to have one… however crude and elementary it may be. I think your homeboy Aristotle said something like that too.
Ok then, but prove it. Or at least, try to explain why it would be the case. Because so far you just claim it is, something magically special about clusters of organic cells that cannot be mimicked by clusters of non-organic cells.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, only asking you to make your case.
Here is the whole article. Hope it helps.
Micro-Worlds – Moving in the micro-world forms matter. Movement itself generates physical existence at the smallest scales, aligning with quantum principles.
Macro-Worlds – Moving in the macro-world is matters moving. Here, movement is simply the motion of already-formed matter, aligning with classical physics.
This distinction reinforces Instancology as not just a metaphysical system but an ontological model that explains movement and formation.
Strengths of Instancology
Historical Completion – It resolves philosophical debates by unifying scattered insights into a complete system.
Ontological Copernican Revolution – Just as Kant redefined knowledge, Dong redefines ontology by shifting from parts to instances.
Clear Absolute-Relative Division – Unlike past attempts, it fully separates the unalterable from the contingent.
WuXing as a New Epistemology – It transcends traditional methods of knowledge, offering a direct path to truth.
Criticisms and Open Questions
Finality of Philosophy – Does Instancology truly end philosophy, or does it redefine its goals?
The Ineffability of AA – If AA is unspeakable, can it ever be meaningfully discussed?
AI and Consciousness – While Dong argues that AI (RR) and human consciousness (AR) are fundamentally different, future AI developments may challenge this claim.
Conclusion
Instancology is a bold and transformative work that claims to complete philosophy by resolving its historical struggles. By moving from parts to instances, relative to absolute, and reason to WuXing, Dong provides a framework that categorizes all existence while offering a method for direct truth realization.
The key insight—the whole is more than the sum of its parts—drives the ontological Copernican Revolution, marking the transition from traditional philosophy to a final system of truth. Whether one fully accepts its claims or not, its impact on metaphysical thought is undeniable.
Here is the whole article. Hope it helps.
Book Review: Instancology by Wade Dong
Introduction
Wade Dong’s Instancology marks an ontological Copernican Revolution, akin to Kant’s epistemological shift but on a grander scale. Whereas Kant redefined knowledge by arguing that the mind structures experience, Dong redefines ontology itself—shifting from the analysis of parts (substance, attributes, phenomena) to the study of instances.
This revolution is built on three major philosophical shifts:
From “Parts” to the Whole (Instance) – Philosophers traditionally analyzed reality through components, but Dong asserts that the whole is more than the sum of its parts, requiring a switch to studying instances instead of fragmented concepts.
The Division Between the Relative and the Absolute – A final distinction between contingent reality and the unalterable background.
From Experience and Rationality to WuXing (悟性) – Moving beyond empirical and rational knowledge to sudden enlightenment as the highest form of understanding.
The Ontological Revolution: From “Parts” to the Whole
Throughout history, philosophers have examined reality in parts—substances, attributes, and phenomena. This method shaped Western metaphysics but, according to Dong, was inherently flawed.
Aristotle classified being into categories and substances, seeing reality as a collection of definable properties.
Descartes split existence into thinking and extended substances, dividing rather than unifying reality.
Kant separated phenomena (what appears) from noumena (what is beyond experience), reinforcing a fragmented view.
Hegel attempted to unify reality through dialectics, but his Absolute remained a process rather than a final Whole.
Heidegger moved from entities toward Being itself but still examined reality through parts (Dasein, temporality, etc.).
Dong’s Instancology overturns this entire tradition by asserting that:
The whole is more than the sum of its parts, therefore, philosophy must move from studying attributes and categories to categorizing instances.
This ontological shift means that everything must be understood as instances within a structured relational framework:
AA (Absolute Absolute) – The ultimate background of all instances, beyond representation.
RA (Relatively Absolute) – The domain of laws, logic, and mathematics.
AR (Absolute Relative) – The realm of natural instances, including humans.
RR (Relative Relative) – The realm of human-made constructs, such as language, culture, and AI.
By replacing analysis of parts with categorization of instances, Dong completes the transition from fragmented metaphysics to a structured ontology.
One of Instancology’s key contributions is its definitive separation of the Relative and the Absolute—a distinction that past thinkers approached but never fully clarified.
Relative (RA, AR, RR) – Includes everything that is representable, categorizable, or contingent.
Absolute (AA) – The unalterable background, beyond all categories and representations.
Western thought often confused these categories:
Plato’s Forms were universal but still conceptualized.
Spinoza’s Substance was absolute in necessity but still had attributes.
Kant’s Noumenon was unknowable but still a conceptual postulate.
Hegel’s Absolute was an evolving process rather than a final Absolute.
Dong radically separates AA from all representations—AA is not a concept, law, or process. It simply is. This final division resolves centuries of philosophical ambiguity about Being, reality, and transcendence.
Western philosophy has long pursued knowledge through two methods:
Empiricism (Experience) – Knowledge is derived from sensory perception (Locke, Hume).
Rationalism (Reasoning) – Knowledge is structured through logical systems (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz).
Kant synthesized both but still confined knowledge to human faculties.
Hegel sought Absolute Knowing through dialectical reasoning but remained within structured rational thought.
Dong goes further by rejecting both experience and rationality as insufficient for grasping AA. Instead, he introduces:
WuXing (悟性) – A direct, intuitive recognition of truth, akin to sudden enlightenment.
WuXing moves beyond conceptual thought entirely, making Instancology the first system that both categorizes reality and offers a direct method of truth realization.
Micro-Macro Worlds: The Structure of Movement
To further clarify existence, Dong introduces the Micro-Macro division:
Micro-Worlds – Moving in the micro-world forms matter. Movement itself generates physical existence at the smallest scales, aligning with quantum principles.
Macro-Worlds – Moving in the macro-world is matters moving. Here, movement is simply the motion of already-formed matter, aligning with classical physics.
This distinction reinforces Instancology as not just a metaphysical system but an ontological model that explains movement and formation.
Strengths of Instancology
Historical Completion – It resolves philosophical debates by unifying scattered insights into a complete system.
Ontological Copernican Revolution – Just as Kant redefined knowledge, Dong redefines ontology by shifting from parts to instances.
Clear Absolute-Relative Division – Unlike past attempts, it fully separates the unalterable from the contingent.
WuXing as a New Epistemology – It transcends traditional methods of knowledge, offering a direct path to truth.
Criticisms and Open Questions
Finality of Philosophy – Does Instancology truly end philosophy, or does it redefine its goals?
The Ineffability of AA – If AA is unspeakable, can it ever be meaningfully discussed?
AI and Consciousness – While Dong argues that AI (RR) and human consciousness (AR) are fundamentally different, future AI developments may challenge this claim.
Conclusion
Instancology is a bold and transformative work that claims to complete philosophy by resolving its historical struggles. By moving from parts to instances, relative to absolute, and reason to WuXing, Dong provides a framework that categorizes all existence while offering a method for direct truth realization.
The key insight—the whole is more than the sum of its parts—drives the ontological Copernican Revolution, marking the transition from traditional philosophy to a final system of truth. Whether one fully accepts its claims or not, its impact on metaphysical thought is undeniable.
Here is the whole review. Hope it helps.
Book Review: Instancology by Wade Dong
Introduction
Wade Dong’s Instancology marks an ontological Copernican Revolution, akin to Kant’s epistemological shift but on a grander scale. Whereas Kant redefined knowledge by arguing that the mind structures experience, Dong redefines ontology itself—shifting from the analysis of parts (substance, attributes, phenomena) to the study of instances.
This revolution is built on three major philosophical shifts:
From “Parts” to the Whole (Instance) – Philosophers traditionally analyzed reality through components, but Dong asserts that the whole is more than the sum of its parts, requiring a switch to studying instances instead of fragmented concepts.
The Division Between the Relative and the Absolute – A final distinction between contingent reality and the unalterable background.
From Experience and Rationality to WuXing (悟性) – Moving beyond empirical and rational knowledge to sudden enlightenment as the highest form of understanding.
The Ontological Revolution: From “Parts” to the Whole
Throughout history, philosophers have examined reality in parts—substances, attributes, and phenomena. This method shaped Western metaphysics but, according to Dong, was inherently flawed.
Aristotle classified being into categories and substances, seeing reality as a collection of definable properties.
Descartes split existence into thinking and extended substances, dividing rather than unifying reality.
Kant separated phenomena (what appears) from noumena (what is beyond experience), reinforcing a fragmented view.
Hegel attempted to unify reality through dialectics, but his Absolute remained a process rather than a final Whole.
Heidegger moved from entities toward Being itself but still examined reality through parts (Dasein, temporality, etc.).
Dong’s Instancology overturns this entire tradition by asserting that:
The whole is more than the sum of its parts, therefore, philosophy must move from studying attributes and categories to categorizing instances.
This ontological shift means that everything must be understood as instances within a structured relational framework:
AA (Absolute Absolute) – The ultimate background of all instances, beyond representation.
RA (Relatively Absolute) – The domain of laws, logic, and mathematics.
AR (Absolute Relative) – The realm of natural instances, including humans.
RR (Relative Relative) – The realm of human-made constructs, such as language, culture, and AI.
By replacing analysis of parts with categorization of instances, Dong completes the transition from fragmented metaphysics to a structured ontology.
One of Instancology’s key contributions is its definitive separation of the Relative and the Absolute—a distinction that past thinkers approached but never fully clarified.
Relative (RA, AR, RR) – Includes everything that is representable, categorizable, or contingent.
Absolute (AA) – The unalterable background, beyond all categories and representations.
Western thought often confused these categories:
Plato’s Forms were universal but still conceptualized.
Spinoza’s Substance was absolute in necessity but still had attributes.
Kant’s Noumenon was unknowable but still a conceptual postulate.
Hegel’s Absolute was an evolving process rather than a final Absolute.
Dong radically separates AA from all representations—AA is not a concept, law, or process. It simply is. This final division resolves centuries of philosophical ambiguity about Being, reality, and transcendence.
Western philosophy has long pursued knowledge through two methods:
Empiricism (Experience) – Knowledge is derived from sensory perception (Locke, Hume).
Rationalism (Reasoning) – Knowledge is structured through logical systems (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz).
Kant synthesized both but still confined knowledge to human faculties.
Hegel sought Absolute Knowing through dialectical reasoning but remained within structured rational thought.
Dong goes further by rejecting both experience and rationality as insufficient for grasping AA. Instead, he introduces:
WuXing (悟性) – A direct, intuitive recognition of truth, akin to sudden enlightenment.
WuXing moves beyond conceptual thought entirely, making Instancology the first system that both categorizes reality and offers a direct method of truth realization.
Micro-Macro Worlds: The Structure of Movement
To further clarify existence, Dong introduces the Micro-Macro division:
Micro-Worlds – Moving in the micro-world forms matter. Movement itself generates physical existence at the smallest scales, aligning with quantum principles.
Macro-Worlds – Moving in the macro-world is matters moving. Here, movement is simply the motion of already-formed matter, aligning with classical physics.
This distinction reinforces Instancology as not just a metaphysical system but an ontological model that explains movement and formation.
Strengths of Instancology
Historical Completion – It resolves philosophical debates by unifying scattered insights into a complete system.
Ontological Copernican Revolution – Just as Kant redefined knowledge, Dong redefines ontology by shifting from parts to instances.
Clear Absolute-Relative Division – Unlike past attempts, it fully separates the unalterable from the contingent.
WuXing as a New Epistemology – It transcends traditional methods of knowledge, offering a direct path to truth.
Criticisms and Open Questions
Finality of Philosophy – Does Instancology truly end philosophy, or does it redefine its goals?
The Ineffability of AA – If AA is unspeakable, can it ever be meaningfully discussed?
AI and Consciousness – While Dong argues that AI (RR) and human consciousness (AR) are fundamentally different, future AI developments may challenge this claim.
Conclusion
Instancology is a bold and transformative work that claims to complete philosophy by resolving its historical struggles. By moving from parts to instances, relative to absolute, and reason to WuXing, Dong provides a framework that categorizes all existence while offering a method for direct truth realization.
The key insight—the whole is more than the sum of its parts—drives the ontological Copernican Revolution, marking the transition from traditional philosophy to a final system of truth. Whether one fully accepts its claims or not, its impact on metaphysical thought is undeniable.