The Philosophy of Continuity

Here it is, irreducible and uncanny:

Continuity is the ontological category whose only job is to be self-sustaining. The only contents of this category are a pointer back to the category itself. This is the necessary ground that sustains all other possibilities.

The first derived category is Quantity, whose contents include: Unity and Multiplicity. Unity is the ground of Multiplicity (That is, Multiplicity is derivative of Unity).

The next derived category is Quality. This category is derived from the ontological category (Continuity), and so it is of the same order as Quantity. Within this category are included all of the “sensations.”

The next derived category is Nomination (in the basic sense, it means “to name”). This category is also derived from Continuity, and so it is of the same order as Quantity and Quality. Within this category are all of the arbitrary symbols that “externally attach to” (signify) the various permutations of the preceding categories.

The combination of Multiplicity and Nomination gives us the category of Number.

The combination of Quality and Nomination gives us: a) the category of Description (eg green, hot, hard), b) the category of Noun (man, dog, tree), and c) the category of Name (Dave, Sally, Snoopy).

The combination of Continuity and Quality (Sensation) gives us Motion, and the combination of Nomination and Motion gives us Verb.

I. Continuity: The Ontological Category
A. A pointer back to the category itself.

II. The Derived (Grounded) Categories
A. Quantity

  1. Unity
    a. Multiplicity (This is derived from Unity)

B. Quality

  1. All possible Sensations
    a. Motion (Sensation plus Continuity)

C. Nomination

  1. All possible Symbols/Words

III. The Combined Categories (Nomination plus…)
A. Number (Multiplicity)
B. Description (Quality)
C. Noun (Quality)
D. Name (Quality)
E. Verb (Motion)

It is from the combined categories that we have our language that can describe any possible circumstance in the world. And it is precisely from within this language that we must attempt to construct a System that is able to ontologically ground it. This is the primary purpose of the philosophical project.

Interesting post! I like it. But a few tidbits . . .

  1. Why posit continuity as foundational? Isn’t it equally possible that the illusion of continuity is imposed on the system?

  2. Here is an old discussion based on the verb/noun distinction. Your system seems to rest heavily on the static ‘noun’ notion of reality (unless I am mistaken) that is linked through continuity. But if the universe is constantly engaged in the process of creation, ever changing, such a static understanding becomes very restrictive. To put it another way, it seems as though your system rests on things ‘being’ as opposed to things ‘becoming’. Is that a correct reading of the situation?

Also, IIIB, C, and D are all equivalent and should probably be collapsed into one entity.

Xunzian, Thanks for the reply. I’ll get to you, but I just banged out an update of all this, and I want to get to some reading at the moment…

I don’t expect too many people to bang their heads against the wall trying to figure this cryptic stuff out. I have plenty of programming experience, so I have a thing for concision.

Here are the revised categories:

I. The Ontological Category

  • A. Continuity
    — 1. Recursion

II. The Meaningful Categories

  • A. Quantity
    — 1. Unity → Multiplicity
  • B. Quality (The Sensations)
  • C. Equality
    — 1. Symbolism
    — 2. Mathematics
  • D. Dimensionality
    — 1. Duration (Transcendent Temporality) = (( Unity & Continuity ))
    — 2. Succession (Derived Temporality) = (( Multiplicity & Continuity ))
    — 3. Spatiality = (( Multiplicity & Quality ))
    — 4. Motion = (( Succession & Spatiality ))

III. The Symbolic Categories

  • A. Number (Multiplicity)
  • B. Time (Succession)
  • C. Space (Spatiality)
  • D. Description (Quality)
  • E. Noun (Quality)
    — 1. Names
  • F. Verb (Motion)

Where:
‘->’ = Derives

Notes:
I know that most (if not all) philosophers like to wrap up all “logical operators” into a nice tidy package. There are four main operators (plus others): “or,” “and,” “not,” and “if.” I could create a fourth major division and use it for logical operators, and leave it at that. But I just think that there are deeper reasons for each one of the operators. For example, “and” is deeply related to the concept of Succession; “or” to that of Spatiality. I am going to think about this.

Yes, you are mistaken. This isn’t the whole of my system. Check out: this thread for my “metaphysical derivation” of the whole shebang. This stuff right here is just the boring Kantian, categorical stuff that will give the whole system a strong “backbone.”

As far as the concept of continuity is concerned, there are very, very deep reasons for it. (I mean, I don’t think that Newton and Leibniz simultaneously expounded on it for no reason… it is the very foundation of the calculus.) I’m going to get back to reading some Dewey… We’ll talk more…