First Metaphysics, redux

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

It has been just over two years since I wrote the essay, First Metaphysics: Continuing the Heideggerean Project. In it, I attempted to show the ontological ground of all possible forms of physics. I wholly admit that I tried to make it as dense and scholarly as I possibly could, thereby alienating a huge portion of my potential audience.

I am now at a point, like Kant with his Prolegomena, that I want to present it in a way that is more palatable to the general public. I would also like to use my philosophy as a “touchstone” in terms of critiquing the ideas of others.

The working title of this new version is:

First Metaphysics, or, an Essay Concerning the Ontological Ground of the Physical Universe

Unlike the first version, I am in no rush to get this one finally completed. I want it very much to be an organic process. I would fully appreciate any input from all of you during this process.

So, let us get to it…

The focal point of my entire system of thought concerns the concept that we call: time. It is my opinion that the entire purpose of the discipline of philosophy is to come to an accurate understanding of this concept. For, once we do this, then all problems of “duality” (I hope to show) dissolve into the ether.

The best way to approach the question of time, in my belief, is by using the analogy of geometry. The popular notion of time upholds that it consists of a linear shape. Furthermore, the geometrical definition of a line is simply the points that are at its ends: it says nothing of the “connective tissue” that lies in between. Or, shall I say, all attempts to describe the nature of what lies in between are pure nonsense.

It is my belief that this “betweenness” that divides the endpoints of a time-line is the very ground of that which we call: space. In other words, spatiality-as-such is purely derivative of the notion that is called: time. Furthermore, spatiality-as-such is otherwise known as: dimensionality. The final leap that we must take is that dimensionality, essentially, is the “supporting ground” of that which we call the physical universe.

Let’s go back to our time-line for a moment. What if a line is not the “true” shape of time, but is rather only the appearance – or representation – of time? If we were to each sit down, shut our eyes, and think of nothing at all, then there are no arbitrary interruptions to divide one point in time from another. This period of time, one could say, is a pure moment of being. This moment, in itself, is an essential fullness whereby past (memory) and future (anticipation) collapse into a singular present.

Perhaps it would be wise to hypothesize that the “true” shape of time is a zero-dimensional geometrical point: there is no “betweenness” to separate this point from itself. Therefore, there is not now anything like “space”, dimensionality, or the physical universe within our philosophical framework. Without this infinitely dense fullness that is time-itself, none of these other things could be said to exist. In this way, it could be said that true time is the ontological ground of the physical universe.

But what is it that we are truly referring to when we talk of true time? Is not this non-dimensional singularity simply the thing that we call: I, myself? When we remove all shifting worldly appearances from the notion of time, are we not just getting to the very core of our being? In other words, are not the statements, “I am” and “There is time”, identical in every way?

If this is true, then it makes just as much sense to say that I, myself, am the ontological ground of the physical universe. More rigorously, this is saying that there can be no Object (a world) without its Subject (a witness). Of course, many would say that this position is nothing more than solipsism, and therefore, this philosophy is nothing new.

My reply is that philosophy itself is the process whereby a being attempts to discover what it essentially is. This, moreover, is nothing more than saying that philosophy is simply the journey whereby one “comes into” oneself, or simply “becomes” oneself. Even more radically, the goal of the philosopher is simply: to be. All of this is meant to show that philosophy, as that which concerns only the self, is itself a solipsistic enterprise. It is the manner in which we conduct this solipsistic investigation that differentiates one philosophy from another. From what I’ve seen, nobody else has had, as their philosophical starting point, an investigation into the possible “geometries of time”, in order to derive the necessary conditions of all possible physical experience.

(I have used different labels in the past to refer to this notion of true time, including: “the existential mode of I-world unity”, “time-identity” and “the temporal universe”. I suppose that labels such as these are the philosopher’s attempt at “branding” more than anything else. I am no longer in a mood to do this kind of “idea trademarking”. I just want the ideas to speak for themselves.)

So, now that we have gotten to the essence of our philosophical starting point (the absolute self or pure time) the question at large is: How does all the rest (the physical universe) derive from it? It is at this point where we must shift from the typical, epistemological paradigm into an existential one. This shift is the difference between an “objective” knowing (a logical construct) and a “subjective” feeling (a personal disposition).

While in the state of concentration that allowed us to come into an understanding of temporality-as-such, our existential “mode of being” was one of a psychological wholeness, or “spiritual transcendence”. However, whenever we are fretting about the future, for example, we imagine ourselves in different possibilities, and our state of unity is consequently torn asunder, as it were. Whenever we divide time into arbitrary moments, we are also tearing apart the fabric of our very being. The point at which this division occurs may be called an “annihilation”.

But now the question may be asked: What causes this annihilation? The answer is simply, that which we allow to be a cause. In other words, we are always perfectly free to remain that which we essentially are (an infinitely dense moment of being); it is always fully within our power whether to allow annihilation to occur. This is all to say that we each cause annihilation by simply failing to be ourselves.

Annihilated, the singularity of enduring time gives way to the duality that is spatialized time: its being becomes a mere appearance. This “time-line” is the first form of spatiality (the primordial dimension) upon which all other forms (dimensions) are based. Now that its dimensions have been set, the thing that is called the physical universe can be said to exist.

The fundamental axiom of this philosophy is: all possible forms of “physicalism” rely upon the spatial dimensionality that results from the annihilation of time-as-such. In other words, there can be no meaningful discussion of an Object apart from the “dimensional context” that is freely established by its Subject. The cruciality of the concept of dimensionality is what has eluded all other philosophers (of which I am aware) in their attempts to develop a sound metaphysics.

Whenever a philosopher steps out of his solipsistic box, and “posits” an external world, he is no longer, truly speaking, a philosopher: he has become a scientist. A scientist is one who unquestioningly takes as fundamental the dimensional context in which he often finds himself. Most of the Western tradition, in its desire to “know things”, should therefore be looked at as a kind of “introduction to the basic concepts of science”, as opposed to the profoundly more philosophical leanings of the East, where the idea of enlightenment – or, spiritual transcendence – is of prime importance.

Given all of these considerations, we may now come to a philosophically robust definition of the concept that we call “space”:

Spatiality-as-such is the period in which one “awaits” for the reunification of the annihilation of the singularity that is true time. In other words, in waiting to “come back into ourselves”, we are held in a kind of suspension between a remembered state of psychological wholeness (spiritual transcendence) and an expected one. This notion of awaiting does not imply a lack of bodily physical activity: it only implies that the pure self is not a physical entity to which the idea of physical activity can sensibly apply. In other words, our bodies can be fully engaged in worldly activity while our inner selves are waiting for psychological reunification.

My hope is that this philosophy will serve as a bridge between the epistemology of the West and the spiritualism of the East. These two aspects of humanity have all too often been seen as essentially distinct from one another, occasionally giving way to outright hostility. However, if it can be realized that the self, as a function of temporality, is the very ground of the spatial dimensions that themselves ground all forms of physicalistic thought, then there is much hope for those who want to continue to push the nature of inter-personal discourse into a positive direction.

2

Since I haven’t received any replies to this thread, I want to share the responses that I gave to another philosophy forum to which I posted the same above message. You can see the full thread here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=223140

===========================================

apeman,

This is not simply one type of philosophy out of many. Like Kant, I am trying to develop the principles that allow there to be any kind of experience whatsoever. This “kind” of philosophy is called metaphysics. It uses no ready made concepts, but only takes as axiomatic those ideas that are self-evident (i.e. a priori).

Other “kinds” of philosophy are not true philosophy in the sense that they all ultimately borrow concepts from an underlying metaphysics, whether this metaphysics is an explicit doctrine or simply an average one that is based on a generally accepted way of looking at things. I have no qualms with the notion that arguments of increasingly higher levels of abstraction can be said to be more “philosophical”. However, philosophy-as-such abstracts all wordly concepts so as to arrive at the very concepts that ground all possible forms of worldly experience.

Metaphysics, then, contrary to popular opinion, has nothing to do with spooky, hidden forces or anything that may said to be “other wordly”. My metaphysics is wholly an inquiry into the ontological ground of what I call: spatiality-as-such. And it is precisely a robust answer to this question, I believe, that dissolves all philosophical dualities.

Other than that, I appreciate your honest attempt to understand what I am trying to say, and I’m glad that you found it intellectually stimulating.

…

kennethamy,

I have no problem with the fact that you are not able to understand my philosophy. I realize that I could do better in my explanations. In fact, that is my main motivation for posting to this message board. I want to put it into more easily digestable terms than I have previously done.

However, I have a notion that there is a more fundamental difference between myself and a person who makes 13,000 posts in 4 years that a “clearer explanation” can resolve. You could very well be a reactionary who has stopped his or her learning process long ago.

You may be exceptional at the art of sophistry, but as far as your understanding of the true nature of philosophy, I am not too sure how accurate it is.

…

comiezapr,

Aside from your empty criticisms concerning the quality of my writing, the heart of your response consists of the fact that there are several conceptualizations of time, all of which depend on the use that they are put to. Therefore, my conception is simply one more to “throw into the bucket”. The problem with mine, according to you, is that there seems to be no “purpose” for it.

I wholeheartedly disagree that there are several essentially differing ideas of time in the mainstream consciousness. On the contrary, there is only one: the succession of worldly appearances. Every example that you attempted to give of a different idea of time implies this idea.

What I am attempting to do is to show how the idea of temporal succession is wholly derivative of the idea that sees time as a unity that simply endures. In other words, succession is the mere appearance of duration. True time is that which endures and apparent time is that which successively changes. My thesis is that without duration, there could not possibly be anything like succession.

The proof that I offer as to the “reality” of this idea of time is simply the transcendental unity of the self. In other words, to be self-conscious is simply to endure: to sense nothing but one’s inner fullness. To affirm the existence of one’s self is the same as to affirm the existence of a primordially unified period of time that simply endures.

This self-identity, this time that goes nowhere but always remains, is the starting point of my exigesis. It is only with this universally valid unity that there may be any kind of multiplicity. I call the point at which temporal unity is multiplied: annihilation. The best way that I’ve found to describe the process of annihilation is that the singularity of the enduring present is arbitrarily “ripped apart”. Instead of simply existing, the self is “held in suspense” between a remembered state of transcendental unity and an expected (hoped for) one.

This state of being “held in suspense” is what I call: awaiting the reunification of the annihilation of true time. It is only in this way that there can be any understanding of the concept that is called space. (To distinguish this metaphysics from physics, I prefer to use the term: spatiality-as-such.) Furthermore, spatiality-as-such is the very thing that gives “structure” to all possible forms of dimensionality. All of this is meant to show that temporal dimensionality (successiveness) is the a priori condition for the spatial dimensionality that is used to construct physical models of the universe. And because temporal unity is the a priori condition of temporal successiveness, then we can affirm that the transcendental unity of time (the pure self) is the ontological ground of that which is popularly called: the physical universe.

From what I’ve seen, there is not currently a sound metaphysics, because no major philosophers have been able to give a satisfactory explanation of the ontological ground of spatiality-as-such. Kant said that space is the form of the external intuition, which itself relies upon the existence of time, as the form of the internal intuition. While his explanation, ultimately, is in no way contradictory to my own, it is practically all form and no substance. In my opinion, however, a philosophy that is all form and no substance is no kind of philosophy at all. It is meant to be studied but not remembered.

The fact that I am so explicit as to state the fundamental points of my philsophy in terms of geometry is a testament of my desire to ground it as concretely as possible. In fact, I am not sure that I would have been able to convey my ideas had they not been explained by way of geometrical analogy.

As for the question of the useful purpose of my conception of the transcedental relationship between the endurance of true time and the succession of apparent time. The purpose, simply, is to be myself: fully and authentically. That, after all, should be the goal of every “lover of wisdom” worthy of the name of philosopher. Those who see the notion of “putting things to use” as the zenith of the philosophical process are the shallowest of humans, worthy of not even a moment’s consideration.

Whatever other points you were trying to make were lost in your lack of skill at making very much sense.

3

I’m a little hesitant to jump in with a comment here, give the obvious labour involved and the lack of comment from anyone else, but… I’ll have a short go and see what happens!

Interesting starting point. Have you considered questions of physics, or is this an exercise only in hypothetical metaphysics? For myself, I tend to avoid theorizing that ignores the physical realities that we can now observe or postulate scientifically; it gets to be too much like that old question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. :smiley: So anyroad, before we take this much further, it would be good to know if you have considered questions of what time is.

I don’t really follow you here (which is what motivates the question above). By ‘popular notion’ do you mean just the common-sensical way that we all get through the day? Or the way that philosophy has engaged with the question of time?

Linear time has always been, for me, bound up in questions of apocalyptic eschatology; that is, with mythology, not with philosophy. Since Einstein is seems rather difficult to envision time in a simple, linear fashion; not when it can be shown to be a function of space itself, and to have an odd, sort-of elastic relationship to the other three dimensions!

And if we take account of Kurt Gödel’s logic, time cannot even exist in an Einsteinian universe! His brilliant reading of relativity torpedoed the concept entirely, and the last I checked no-one had yet refuted his position. I’ve always found that to be somehow both amusing and comforting: if something we can take so easily for granted–like time–can turn out not to exist at all, what other mysteries does the universe have in store for us? :laughing:

4

morthaur,

The essence of my interest in philosophy is as a discipline that ontologically grounds the science that has as its object the thing that we call the physical universe. This science is physics. This is the only sense in which I use the term “metaphysics”.

I know that the idea of an “ontological ground” may seem unusual, but it really isn’t if you are familiar with the existential manner of questioning. This basically means that a person tries to discover how their very moods conditions the way that they perceive reality.

Of course, logical positivist types would argue than there is nothing “existential” about the axioms of mathematics or the laws of physics, and that this entire line of questioning is ultimately bunk. Except for one thing: how are they going to explain the idea of subjectivity? Or how about love and hatred? Happiness and sadness?

I, along with other twentieth century philosophers, have come to harbor the notion that the things called “moods” are the closest things that there are to each one of us. Perhaps, then, a philosophy that has as its principles different “modes of being” can explain the basic principles of mathematics and physics better than those disciplines can explain the basic principles of subjectivity.

You stated that metaphysics is merely hypothetical and implied that physics is a wellspring of certainty. When I graduated high school, I would have agreed with this notion. However, the past 13 years of inquiry have caused me to turn this notion on its head. The reason for this is based entirely on the question of temporality: is it primordially a duration or a succession?

I have come to understand that the key to solving all philosophical dualities is the idea of the “transcendental relationship” the between these two forms of temporality. Once it is understood that they are both identical with corresponding modes of being, then you have the necessary tools to begin a derivation of the basic principles that ground both mathematics and physics.

I have a feeling that the difference between me and someone like Godel is that his arguments are purely formal whereas I try to make mine strike at the very heart of one’s being. This kind of “shocking revelation” is the genius of the Eastern tradition. If I can somehow show, by way of a rigorous inquiry, that the “mystical, ineffable truth” of the East is the very foundation of the rationalism of the West, then I’ll be satisfied.

My first attempt to do this was in a hastily assembled essay that I’ve linked to below. However, I’ve realized that the skill of a philosopher is nothing without the ability to give a clear, lucid exposition of his thoughts. This is what has given me a renewed energy concerning the discipline of philosophy. New ideas are coming into my mind like never before. I don’t want to burn myself out by trying to spit it all out at once, like I used to, however.

Because I feel that my philosophy is so grounded, I am no longer all that excited by the whole dialectical process of the message boards, as an activity in itself. (My idea of fun is meditating on Kant’s antinomies.) I just want to use these boards as a tangible way to measure how skilled I am at describing all of the thoughts that are running around my head…

5

One point of disagreement, then, before I leave you to your meditations on Kant. ‘Certainty’ has no place in the sciences, and there is no implication–or intent–on my part to suggest otherwise. All conclusions of science are provisional; just as, from my perspective, are all judgements. Of course, my scepticism does answer to your first statement above: I do consider metaphysics ‘hypothetical’ (at best). But have fun!

6

Of course there is no such thing as “certainty” in science. But I’m not just talking about science, as the art of experimentation. I’m talking about that which is said to ground the sciences: mathematics. The entire foundation of the Critique of Pure Reason rests upon the assumption that mathematics give us synthetical, a priori propositions. That is to say that science can at least be “certain” of the transcendent a priority of its mathematical logic.

I’m not using the term “metaphysics” in a sense that opens it to the charge of being hypothetical. That “I am” is the highest truth I can possibly imagine. That this “I am” is only given by the sense of a transcendentally unified duration is equally undoubtable. My first metaphysical principle, simply, is that the pure self is identical with temporal-duration-as-such.

I hope you would all agree that there could be no such thing as the physical sciences without the thing called “space”. Science always takes for granted that space is immediately give to us, and that its conceptual objectivity is necessary. However, my radical departure is simply that there cannot possibly be an idea of space without the metaphysical principle that grounds it.

So, anything you can say about the utility of the art of experimentation goes without saying. The point is that this art has nothing to do with any kind of detached certitude, provisional or otherwise. Experimentation is the ever-present mode of being of all animals, as instinctual beings. (The instant your normal routine goes wrong, you are immediately going to seek for better ways of doing things.)

Metaphysics, truly, only exists to delineate those principles that allow there to be such a thing as experimentation (which is just another word for experience).

7

I wasn’t talking about your arguments; I was objecting to you putting that silliness in my mouth.

How is this radical? That is, how is this even a departure from Kant?

8

I don’t know about your claims in their entirity, but I support the notion that a better understanding an routine acknowledgement of time in philisophy, is essential to coherent application of philosophy to reality.

I see examples of this routinely. From paradoxes (which often make time implications that result in X, but claims that forget the time implications that results in concluding Y), to definitions of truth (truth now…what is now precisely, and if now is not precise, how can truth defined as precise be relevant), and so forth.

-Mach

9

The first metaphysics were imbedded with so many forms of religious idealism and superstition that it should become obvious of it’s absurdity.

To see reality for what it “is” we must go beyond all human constructions of physics.

10

Sure there is. Skeptics make the mistake of assuming that since the induction fallacy prevents any “logical” connection or necessity in/for causal events, that this implies that there cannot be established parameters for experiment…which yield very certain probablities, at least.

It is “certain” that we can observe events in the world that seemingly corespond to “laws”, events which, in similiar conditions, occur with uniform precision. Perhaps the skeptics question is one which deals with the nature of the laws themselves, and to what degree they are necessary. This is basically where metaphysics begins. However, asking such questions are, if you haven’t noticed, extremely futile. One might ask next: where are the meta-meta-physics for the meta-physics…so on and so forth.

Scientific certainity is simply the observation of uniform results given in certain established conditions. To “verify” a scientitic truth is not to “discover the metaphysical laws behind the laws that cause the uniform result”, nor is that necessary to reach scientific conclusions. We are certain of the scientific method in so far as we experience and observe repetition during experimentation.

When hydrogen and oxygen no longer create water when combined…come talk to me about “scientific uncertainity”.

11

dkane75

This has been my conclusion, as well.

In understanding time we understand ourselves as manifestations and pieces of it.

Matter can be seen as a phenomenon relating to different speeds of temporal flow, interpreted by the mind as substance.

I think of space as temporal possibility.

There is no in-between but the vast empty spaces leftover when we posit points so as to understand our place.

Yes, and these “interruptions” are due to the succession of thoughts which we call consciousness and that exhibit their own speed of flow.

Consciousness is a stream of snapshots of the flow, producing abstractions or artificial Absolutes, such as the ‘here’ and ‘now’ and subsequently the ‘self’.

The mind requires order to understand and to store the experience in memory. So it orders by finding patterns in the apparent disordering.
It is resistant or reactive.
This produces the illusion of Absolutes where there is only flow.

The ordering it calls ‘in’ or ‘self’, as opposed to the yet to be ordered ‘outside’ or ‘other’. This first dichotomy is essential to the mind’s processing and it produces all the other dualities.

Heidegger.

The concept of “I” and the flux are tautologies. Time becomes a measurement of the flow by positing these arbitrary points necessary to establish a standard or a grid which defines the experience.

The term ‘world’ or ‘reality’ is an interpretation of the experience.

Consciousness is the experience of the flow of its self.
The other becomes the point necessary to interact and to relate to and to compare with so as to establish an understanding.

Time implies a Becoming which lacks an Absolute, or a Being.

In essence the striving for a Being is a death wish - self-annihilation.

The consciousness of an emerging unity, or coalescing temporal flow, finds nothing and is lost to fear. It struggles to grab onto anything that offers it a semblance of stability and completion.
It is the universe trying to find an end.

There is no “dense moment of Being”.
All these terms denote what is absent…the Absolute.

The struggle is to maintain the cohesion of an emerging temporal unity and to then expand it or order it further. this ordering is a cutting away, a distancing, a falling out of reality. As a unity approaches the absent Absolute, is detaches from the flux.
The concept of independence as opposed to the deterministic existence of inter-relationships which is dependence.

Annihilation, itself, is not completed, s this would be an end in itself.
Only the temporal unity is annihilated and surrenders to the flow. It’s parts reconstituting into new emerging unities resisting the flow and forming streams within the flow, along the paths-of-least-resistance.

The appearance is the relationship between observer and observed.
One pooling temporal unity, having reached a certain level of ordering, becomes conscious, as a means of focusing energies more efficiently, and perceives objects exhibiting a differentiation of temporality it interprets as matter or energy.

There is no annihilation of time.
Reality is time interacting with itself.

Time is a measurement of the flux tending towards inertia but never attaining it.

This psychological desire for the Wholeness, is an intuitive projection of self towards the non-existent Being or Absolute.

In fact we cannot rationally posit the concept of a Whole. It is the sum of human understanding projected or imagined into the unknown.

The concept of a “pure self” is a psychological reaction to the nothingness of self or to the yet to be achieved self. It often masks self-hatred or dissatisfaction and disappointment with the perception of an incomplete self.
The mind, then, imagines an underlying, hidden reality, where the thing-in-itself offers it a relief. there is no reason to suppose an underlying anything, and yet the psychological need for concreteness or completion, an expression of self-hatred and resentment of temporality, desires to escape the phenomenal world, which offers only need/suffering with no apparent end or meaning.
Need/suffering being the conscious awareness of the flux or the flux’s attrition upon the emerging unity.

This desire to avoid suffering underlies these philosophical positions. It is a desire to escape existence, since to exist and to suffer are tautologies.
This tendency towards the inert state of being, is an imagined hope, a running from self and the world into obliviousness.
When it is positive in that it also desires to preserve this unity of memories we call self, it runs towards the Absolute Something, a God or a Thing-in-itself.
When it is negative in that it does not even maintain the possibility of salvaging self, it runs towards nihilism or the Absolute Nothing.

In both cases the non-existent Absolute is still sought and a dissatisfaction with self, as a temporal manifestation doomed to an inevitable failure and only worthy of the experience itself.

The embracing of life is the embracing of this temporal character.
To seek an end or a beginning where none is apparent nor necessary is a cry in the dark.
To imagine a mysterious secret “pure” core is a desperate cry for stability and inertia where none is apparent nor necessary.

Activity is a manifestation of lack. An Absolute would be, by definition, inert and so this mysterious thing-in-itself or “pure time” or “Wholeness” would be inert.
Multiplicity is superfluous when Oneness is fact.
It makes life and existence a sham which is unnecessary.