Its Ontological Grounding: -‘Neutral Monism’
To my mind, there could be but one starting point –that of coming to terms with vexed questions of ontology.
If one is to ‘systems philosophize in the grand classical fashion, one should start at the beginning with the ultimate question: why should there be anything to philosophize about? Why is there, in fact, something rather than nothing, and might it have been otherwise? As Martin Gardner has noted, this question is a very curious one quite unlike any other. It is one which obtrudes itself upon us, whatever may be our philosophical predilections:
"......This brings us abruptly to what Paul Edwards has called the 'super-ultimate question'. 'Why", asks Leibniz, Schelling, Schopenhauer and a hundred other philosophers, 'should there be something rather than nothing?'
"Obviously this is a curious question, not like any other. Large numbers of people, perhaps the majority, live out their lives without ever considering it. If someone asks the question, they may fail to understand it and believe the questioner to be crazy. Among those who understand the question, there are various responses. Thinkers of a mystical turn of mind, Martin Heidegger, for instance, consider it the deepest, most fundamental of all metaphysical questions, and they look with contempt on all philosophers who are not equally disturbed by it. Those of a positivistic, pragmatic turn of mind consider it trivial. Since everyone agrees that there is no way to answer it empirically or rationally, it is a question without cognitive content, as meaningless as asking whether the number 2 is red or green. Indeed, a famous paper by Rudolph Carnap on the meaning of questions heaps scorn on a passage in which Heidegger pontificates about being and nothingness."
I have found questions of ontology to be the most pressing and recalcitrant of the challenges I was to face in bringing my proposed weltanschauung into some degree of articulate; the attempted condensation of the various aspects of this founding category particularly to put together. Indeed, one may well ask: how is the totally of Being to be contemplated and brought into any kind of focus –given the absence of any yet higher ground from which to undertake the survey. As Tillich has remarked, the mission would indeed be hopeless were it not for the fact that we ourselves are participants within this watershed.
What is the bedrock –the ultimate source or watershed- form which all else takes its origin? I prefaced my speculations with a prime demand that any authentic ontology must meet The larger Reality must be endowed with the attribute of self-necessity. –it is intolerable that there might have been nothing rather than something. Reality, if nothing else must be self-necessary in the many ways of being self-consistent, self-creating and self-maintaining and self-essential. Meeting these strictures immediately knocks many contenders out of the ring –while pointing the way towards some opportunities that might otherwise have been overlooked. What comes to me –as it has to some others- with the force of a logical imperative is that Reality is grounded within the third of the three logical sets: of which it is the sole member:
●
Necessary Non-Existence●
Contingent Existence●
Necessary Existence
It may be viewed as a regrounding of both Bőhme’s and Saint Anselm’s positions
If self-necessity, self-sufficiency, self-creativity and self-maintenance are to be vouchsafed, the following assumptions need to be made –a series of propositions that are disturbing in some of their self-contradictory overtones. First of all, it must contain Nonbeing, for if it did not, its self-necessity would be in jeopardy, since there would be no guarantee that positive Being would win out; there might indeed have been Nothing rather than Something. Nevertheless, right away, we have to recognize that the Nonbeing at issue is something quite different from the mere absence of Being:
"......Particularly complex is the relation of being to non-being, for this latter presents itself even more ambiguously than the being of which it is somehow, in some sense, the negation. Some measure of clarity may be introduced by making a fundamental distinction. Going back to Greek usage, we may distinguish between two types of non-being -ouk on and me on, the non-being that flatly negates being and can have no commerce with it, and the non-being that, as potentiality, enters into a dialectical relationship with being as the other pole of a genuine antithesis……[Tillich], true to his bent, strives to combine being and non-being; being, in its self-enclosed isolation, he says, is sterile and inert; it becomes dynamic by taking non-being (me on) into itself. Tillich, therefore, in a sense mediates between Maritain and Berdyaev. He shares the ‘ontic’ allegiance of the former with the ‘meonic’ passion of the latter; but with him, they are united in dialectic tension. Will Herberg; Four Existential Theologians
Further:
this ‘All’ must be a simple unity; if it were composite, starting as a Unity rather than coming into possession of an ‘allship’ through a bottom-up summation. Such an aggregation must fail because the ‘closed infinity’ cannot be reached by any amount of extrapolation."......The pyramid of knowledge no longer rests on foundations but hangs by its vertex; an ideal point never reached and, more curious, constantly rising." T.F.Torrance
My encounter of Böhme’s ‘Ungrund’ turned out to be an important milestone in my personal odyssey reaching towards the New paradigm; I have purloined the name, despite substantial modifications of what he had in mind. Perhaps his own quest would have taken a different turn if some of key insights of modern logic and mathematics had been available to him.
The Ungrund cannot have any properties or features or characteristics, as these are normally understood, for were it to harbour a single such instance, then this would point its opposite or enantiomorph, which would be outside of the original putative ‘All. The unity would be sundered into a dualism. This would lack necessity because it would be contingent; it would be but one of an infinity of ways in which a property or characteristic could be singled out and asserted.
But this immediate confronts us with a contradiction. One thing, which we know for sure –know it as a strident fact rather than an inference- is that this Ungrund has been an astonishingly prolific of the cornucopia of existence that we discover both within ourselves and within the huge cosmos ‘out there’. This demands us –Willy nilly- to concede that there must be a sequestered, shadow organization within its interior attributes that are co-existent with their opposites that viewed in one way are identical to them. It is this which has forced me to assert this as an asymmetry which lies at a great many levels of the larger reality. It may be very simply stated thus
: P > = ~P This difference within an identity has its grounding in Cantor’s denumerable infinity that contains subsets which are mapable into the whole set. As a simple example, it has been known since Greek times that the number of primes is infinite. Yet it is also the case that thanks to the quasi-exponential way in which primes ‘thin out’ it is also true that their density within the totality of integers is zero. Following are some important special cases of this inequality.
(1) Being > = Nonbeing
(2) Spiriit > = Substance
(3) Ψ-Logic > =
(4) Outside > = Inside
(5) Holism > = Individualism
(6) Innocence > = Corruption (& Good >= Evil
(7) Stasis > = Becoming
(8) End > = Beginning
(9) For any Asserted Attribute, its presence >= to its Enantiomorph
‘ > = ‘ ontology within a graded series of alternatives. This particular figure exemplifies the asymmetry with respect to the holism/individualism couple, but much the same applies to all of the other modalities and categories whose relationships are governed by this asymmetry. In the meantime, we need to recognize and explore the theistic implications of a Reality so conceived. There can be no living God –or any kind of personhood resident there –for a number of reasons, any one of which is fatal:It should be noted that the “ > = “ marginal asymmetry applies to the mode, category or parameter pair as they exist in their origins; it is here that their the striking contrasts of the members of the enantiomorphic pair are swallowed up into diaphanous obscurity and quasi non-existence. The corresponding manifestation occurs, as often or not by an eact of ‘symmetry breaking’’
We shall be looking at the ‘metamathematics’ –as we might call it- further below. We must be content, for the moment with Figure 1 which places the proposed
O Any living being –by necessity- is contingent, rather than necessary; it is pursuing a trajectory that is at least partially under its control, hence is one way rather than another. This immediately undermines the self-necessity demanded of any proffered ontology.
O A personal God who had always existed would have an infinite past life –that is a logical contradiction. To posit such a life is top confound the ‘open’ and the ‘completed‘ infinity. An infinite past life gives us the first whereas what we would need would be the second.
O At the same time, alternatively, it’s hard to see how you could assign God to a closed eternity of all time without violating an essential attribute of personhood –as of someone who is active within a linear temporal stream of some sought. As Swinburne has noted, we saddle ourselves with this vertiginous antinomy:
"......The idea of God existing timelessly and yet being aware of things as they happen has very considerable difficulties.”
If it were possible to back away from this embarrassment and allow a theistic God an open future, then this would hardly be something to be desired. We would be assigning God to the bogus substitute the everlasting for a true eternity; He would be condemned to a living hell of
O Finally, it’s very hard to truly cleanse classical theism of the ‘theodicy dilemma’ –of why God should have created us to live in a world beset with the most horrendous of possibilities, and with foresight of what was in store for us. .
As Tillich has succinctly put it, we need to back away form personhood as the foundation stone of reality
"……The God of Theological Theism is a Being beside others, and as such a part of the whole of Reality. He certainly is considered as its most important part, but as a part and therefore subjected to the structure of the whole. He is supposed to be beyond the ontological elements and categories which constitute Reality. But every statement subjects Him to them. He is seen as a Self which has a world. As a cause which is separated from its effect, as having a definite space and an endless time. He is a being, not Being itself."
"As such He is bound to the Subject/Object structure of Reality....God as Subject makes me into an object....God appears as an invincible tyrant, the Being in contrast with whom all other beings are without freedom and subjectivity.....This is the God Nietzsche said had to be killed because nobody can tolerate being made into a mere object of absolute knowledge and absolute control. This is the deepest root of atheism". .
The ‘ontological argument’ of Saint Anselm cannot, therefore, be upheld. One suspects that the theist’s reluctance to dismiss it has to do with the importance he attaches to ‘firstmanship’. It is seemingly felt that to deny God this attribute is to undermine His perfection. What is overlooked is that the living aspect of divinity is preempted by another that is more urgent and must be given precedence. Divinity must be self-necessary above all other considerations.
I wish to make one thing abundantly clear. To deny ‘firstmanship to a living eternal God, as neither to deny possibilities of His later emergence, nor to exclude other manifestations of divinity within the Realm of configured Transcendence –as this emerges from the Ungrund. My weltanschauung is strongly supportive of both theses, as the reader will find discover further below.
The Droll Triple Role of Nonbeing
The incorporation of Nonbeing within the Ungrund, as we have seen, is demanded in
order to secure its self-necessity, self creation and self-maintenance.
Its incorporation of Nonbeing comes very close to neutralizing its
positive presence -to the point where there can be no question of
personhood -let alone of the kind of Holism that theists, for example,
have in mind. Yet it is also true that there are two other reasons
why Nonbeing must have a presence in the larger scheme of things.
First, The positive quality of the stream of conscious existence can
enjoy no more than a shadow existence unless viewed from the perspective
of its negative counterpart; it is this alone that adds zest and
resonance; in its absence life would have on a shadow existence,
being no more than a doppelganger. But the needed copresence of
negatives cannot be given by feat but can only be earned through a
triumphant confrontation -in which positive Being grasps, transforms and
reorients its presence. The relative balance of these two
components is very different -in the finite life that we enjoy- and how
it will be in eternity. Down here, we are very deeply involved in
the confrontation -in all of its horrendous possibilities-, triumphing
over its depredations mostly in small progressive increments. If
-and when- we have finally grown to maturity, we can look back upon our
past tribulations in a very different way; what was painful at the
time often comes to be viewed with wry humour in retrospect.
But in Eternal life, the triumph has been brought to its conclusion br
ought to completion in the process
of recovery of the Tau lifelines of all beings who have ever existed.
There is indeed a confrontation of sorts as each new eternal
instantiation takes shape, but it shall lacks the power to wreck havoc
of any kind
I have found it appropriate to give this tree-fold distinction a topological interpretation. Evidently, surely, the mutual oprientations of the two components of Being must be very different if each is to manifest in its charcteristic way. these three posture are shown in figure 1b . Within the Ungrund one can think of them as being drawn backwords to create the neutral (or very nearneutral) state of the Ungrund's being. During ethical and related confrontations they are in abrasive opposition, each striving for mastery -hhence the opposition of their vectors. But when nonbeing has been creatively captured its orientation is reversed so that the two components of being are now in harmonious union. .
I owe the idea for this three-fold treatment of the Beibg/Nonbeing relationship to Nicholas berdyaev
"......The source of tragedy is that the good and the moral law are absolutely powerless to overcome evil and conquer the source of evil."
"......'Good' and 'Evil' are correlative in the sense that good comes into existence at the same time as evil, and disappears together with it. This is the fundamental paradox of ethics. Paradise is the state of being in which there is no valuation and distinction. It might be said that the world proceeds from the previous absence of discrimination between good and evil to a sharp distinction between them and then, enriched by that experience, ends up by not distinguishing them anymore."
Figure 1c presents a final summary of the nature of the Ungrund -in both of its fundamental eternal changeless 'watershed' and dynamic 'processing' aspects. It is, of course, the first that provides the larger Reality with its ultimate changeless foundations. Above all else, Reality must be self necessary, self-creative, self-consistent, all-inclusive, single, unique and non-contingent. For this to be possible, then for a start it must contain Nonbeing sequestered deeply within itself..If, however, this is to be possible, then Positive Being, though evidently, in some sense or other enjoy a marginal advantage. However, this latter must be paper-thin to the point of vanishing. Were this otherwise, then its Unity would immediately explode into dualism -with the immediate danger that there might indeed have been Nothing -rather than Something. This makes the first and most fundamental call upon that marginal asymmetry -that symbolized as " < = "
This paradoxical asymmetry enables us to have 'our cake and eat it' -in a great many necessary ways. Its mode of impingement of immediate concern is its impact upon the -becoming' or 'process' aspect of reality needed to carry us ultimately to eternal life. What I have taken to be implied here is that its surface simplicity notwithstanding, it must be replete with a configuration of infolding cardinals, singularities and related topological peculiarities of many kinds that make possible a sequence of 'relaxations' -a 'Becoming', bringing forth an increasingly articulate focus of potentiality. Where the " < = " hits home so devastatingly is the way in which it forces infinity and eternity to unwrap all the way down to their respective 'bottom lines' of the singularities of a bare unity that is a point singularity in both time and space. This means that the final goal can only be reached through a 'becoming' that must call for a progressive evolution that carries the physical and organic cosmos up to that convergent goal where eschatolgy can carry what is preserved up into infinity and eternity.
This figure also reminds us that this same " < = " has a great deal to say about both the closeness of our relationship to the Logos that sustains us, and to the grandiloquence of our role in both the planning and the executing of the remainder of evolution and the eschatology wherein it is brought to an end.
I have been speaking throughout of my ontology as being of 'neutral' caliber, rather than of an essentially spiritual variety. I take this to be demanded by the featureless neutrality of the Ungrund. It is unfortunate that one is forced into such a nomenclature for the way in which it suppresses the increasing dominance of spirituality as the processing of Reality proceeds. For one final time, we can but appeal to the " < = " asymmetry by claiming that in proportion as one can say anything about the neutrality of the Ungrund is that is sequesters a leading edge or exteriority that is spiritual in its most basic and grounding form.
. / Home /