Metaphysikos To Thaumatos

Metaphysics of Wonder - Kazis Kripaitis

E) Approach and Method

Approach: This work begins by rejecting the possibility of quantities and of individual, static things. Formally, I am skeptical about the possibility of individuation and I extrapolate the consequences of my skepticism. I argue that which everyone already assumes naïvely: in a non-static context, there can be no static things, and reality is a non-static context; thus, things must always be mutable systems, never discrete quantities. When we try to express how reality articulates in the mind, we can only use static tools, words and numbers, and the disparity is the cause of so much futility in physics and metaphysics. In denying quantities, I deny individual Self, interrogating nihilism and pessimism through an unconventional metaethical framework and a radical approach to logic. I synthesize the logic from my ontology, which is distilled from principles of modern physics. My point of departure is a quote from the quantum theorist David Bohm: “the world is not analyzable into parts”. In the meekest terms, this book explores what happens in ontology, epistemology, and ethics when we regard this quote as a serious physical principle. There is no good argument for individuation, except that it is obvious, and that the alternative is absurd; individuation makes it impossible for us to see that reality is sometimes surprising and absurd. For the trained thinker thirsty for reduction: I assume epistemological perspectivism, mathematical constructivism, and a prudential irrealist metaethic – consequently, I support a paradoxical meontologically realist morality. I insist on the existential quantifier, and would extend this concept to metaphysics by insisting on some species of existential qualifaction.

Method: This work is critical of the conclusions of Quantum Theorists as it is critical of all attempts at quantifaction and individuation. I support the ontological implications of Relativity, which negate concepts like space, time, and absolute motion. However, this work does not intend to explore the deeper science of Quantum Theory or Relativity, work which we must leave to qualified scientists. Neither does this work intend to wrestle with the hydra of epistemology, which may be easier to dismiss than defeat.

Ontology My argument deconstructs the assumption of stasis by proposing a principle of entitation. I show that subjects are asynchronous with the present moment, and themselves must be non-static and systematic. I conclude that with no things, no possibility of observing the moment, and ultimately no individual subjects to do the observing, my ontology must challenge the possibility of being and becoming, and must assume that the hypokeimenic thing-in-itself is an existentially relativistic probability swarm existing prior to what we call the present moment, what I call entitation and doing. Here is presented an ontology in which flux fluxes into stasis, and stasis gives itself what it needs to flux – a model in which the extra-causal universe never needed to have ‘beginning’, never needed to have been ‘created’, never needed to ‘have come from somewhere’. In self-perpetuating pervasive force, static binaries actively describe the fluxing whole, which is split by the completeness, the one-ness of its own force into two static binaries. By such a model, we find that the irreconcilability of quantum physics and Relativity is to be expected. The binary shows the things of ontology as either ‘actual’, or ‘real’, (actually-real or perceived-real), but acknowledges the perceived-real as an actual thing partaking of actual-realness. In such an ontology, every ‘thing’ is a force, and there are only forces. This analysis correlates philosophy and physics, detailing an actual reality in which individual things are an impossibility, a paradigm in which the impossibility of individual things becomes possible, by the condition of their impossibility, and gives ontological status to the real as something actual – impossible, but possible. Possibility correlates to probability in just such a cosmic absurdity. Thing-ness allows for non-thing-ness, which allows for thing-ness...

Logic This radical ontology demands a worthy analysis of logic, in which I deny identity, and the possibility of discrete number, non-contradiction, and sameness, despite our distinct human sense of these ideas. I take aim at is-ness and how the limits of language force the being/becoming paradigm, with the conviction that while this paradigm has worked against philosophy for millennia, absurdity frees language so that it can once again be useful, just as the interpretive science of jazz opened new paradigms of music. As we shall see, the simplest principles of logic are responsible for thousands of years of ontological error, while epistemology begs for a miracle to resolve its petty conundrums. On this stage I introduce the principle of adequacy, an epistemological skepticism which assumes mathematics to be ekphrastic and theory-laden, and regards number a non-static process, leading to a framework of knowledge from inference which arrives at adequate truth – standardized truth principles. Even the most obvious truths are only ever adequate, and do not lose their relative truth value in this framework: truth is possible, but only ever adequate, approximative, or absurd. A closer look at this knowledge framework and how it glues reason and absurdity to interface intuitive understanding, requires the existential lens into Self, identity, and the mechanics of belief. Here, we find that reason undermines freedom by identity and belief in the reasonable expectations of expected knowledge frameworks, like the principle of sufficient reason (everything that happens, happens for a reason), and the principle of individuation (individual things exist). Logic encourages illogic, which cultivates logic: the epistemological backbone of this argument equates knowledge and approximation, truth and the absurd, reason and wonder.

Metaethics Denying Self, my deduction requires we confront the nihilist’s pessimism. I draw a correlation between metaethical problems and ontology, demonstrating a unique metaethics which would meld the logic chapter with a view on Self and belief. I resolve the moral paradox ‘nothing is true, everything is permitted’ by proposing the principle of compassion-entanglement as a fundamental physical force which blends the ‘chaoist’ paradigm of existential freedom with the physical world detailed in my ontology. This principle seeks to depict a function of free Selves in a world without individuation as an aspect of the morally-real chaotic-good. Where most philosophy posing the question of why compassion exists assumes a psychological cause, none explain how psychology, the internal experience of an individual Self, could be the causal basis for something clearly and distinctly external and physical. I see the free Self as an entity in an objectless world, and want to show that in this model, compassion is not empathy, and is external to ego.

<< Back: Glossary -- || -- Next: Foreword >>