Ontological Monism and the Four Philosophical Disciplines Which Lead Toward the Consideration of the Knot of Paradoxicality
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Studies in the Ontology of Emergence Part 2 Ontological Monism and the Four Philosophical Disciplines which lead toward the consideration of the Knot of Paradoxicality Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D. [email protected] http://kdp.me http://archonic.net 714-633-9508 scanned, corrected and revised 2010.01.03, then edited again 2014.12.15; circa 1975-1978 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5298-4422 Copyright 1975-2014. All rights reserved. Not for Distribution Version 13 These ‘Studies in the Ontology of Emergence’ are working papers written and given to my advisors prior to the submission of my final dissertation The Structure of Theoretical Systems in relation to Emergence at the London School of Economics in Sociology completed in 1982. Part A: Sameness and Transcendence [2.1] The ‘clearing of Being’ is an icon for the unity-in-difference" of univocal Being itself. *1 This icon rests on the presumption that everything "in being" is One although it appears as a diversity and further that Being itself has several phases that allows the diversity to have a unity through that very diversity itself. This means that unity is not forged or hidden on a Studies in the Ontology of Emergence - Part 2 separate level of Reality but is within the diversity that appears. This synoptic unity functions precisely through the differences that belong-together within it. Being may be One in spite of its apparent diversity and by that diversity through its phasing into different States of Being. These States of Being fold through one another to allow Being to be One with itself through its differences within itself. So Being as a clearing-of-the-States-of-Being is a multi-faceted synoptic unity through which the diversity of beings may be experienced as One via their ground which, they themselves are. The grounded via the ground are One and the grounded and the ground are One, Yet the differences are there which keep them from collapsing into one another, for if such a collapse occurred then nothing that appears would remain. So by these differences Being stands forth as a Unity in Diversity. *2 To understand how an ev-entity comes into "Being" is to see how it begins to manifest the Oneness of Being {univocality} which is beyond mere presence. {Oneness also gets interpreted eventually as Ultra Being.} That is to see how it participates in the depth process indicated by the states of Being which unfold from the plane of pure presence. Presence as Heidegger says *3 is the measure of Being but the Oneness is never merely present1. What is present can only be seen as a diversity. It is one only in as much as it is all present at the same time. The character of this diversity derives from its "at least two-ness". The Oneness that allows ‘unity in diversity’ is always to be aimed at beyond what is merely present. For an eventity to merely be (present) and for it to be seen as participation in the 1 Cf. Ultra One in A. Badiou Being and Event 2 Studies in the Ontology of Emergence - Part 2 Oneness, which encompasses all things beyond their mere presence where they are in totally different states of Being. The former is seen only as it is in a particular state of Being without reference to others; whereas the latter is seen as participation in all the possible states of Being so as to be at one with itself and all else. The later state of affairs {with reference to Existence rather than Being} is called by the Hua Yen Buddhists "Interpenetration" when it is realized as a State of Being-in-the-world. In Plato's terminology the first is ‘right opinion’ while the second is ‘true knowledge’. We might speak of non-oriented and oriented presence. Oriented presence is directed toward an absence but not just any absence. It is directed toward the absent oneness which is hidden within the presence {called the Essence of Manifestation by M. Henry}. How mere non-oriented presence is distinguished from orienting absences; how the one all- encompassing orientation of Oneness of Being {as univocity} is distinguished from the other orientations; and finally, how this absence is found within presence: is approached only through the icon of the of Being {i.e. the cancellation or annihilation of the states of Being} in terms of the concept of the phasing of Being into different states that fold through one another to produce the all highest non-numerical singular Unity of the totality of Existence. [2.2] Blum is the only sociologist, and to my knowledge the only modern philosopher, to assert the all highest unity of Being in any significant way. This assertion grew out of his re- construction of Plato's thought as a spring board for the criticism of Western philosophy (especially Aristotle) and sociology. However, Blum does not delve into how Being comes to 3 Studies in the Ontology of Emergence - Part 2 stand as One himself - he merely uses it as a guide to re-reading Plato and a resource for his criticism of Aristotle, et. al. To do this, Blum would have had to have taken the route of inquiry *3a rather than inquisition and re-enter the problematic in which he makes Plato live. Blum is, then, guilty of a similar failure of nerve as that he accused Aristotle. "What distinguishes the questions which Aristotle refrains from asking from those which he poses and explores? Why does he seem to turn to his predecessors for certain questions while remaining content with the answers which he puts forth for others? Does perhaps the turn to one's predecessors become such an integral feature of serious questioning that the absence of such a turn comes to announce a failure of nerve? To put it squarely, can Aristotle's assertions about 'wisdom', 'philosophy' and the like, be seen as instances of a failure to turn, or is such an apparent failure in itself a turn of sorts?" *4 Blum, Theorizing, p.2 BIB184 But the same may be said of Blum's failure as Blum himself said of Aristotle. The ‘failure to turn’ is a turn of sorts. He furnishes an indirect inspection of the way Being comes to stand as One by and through his very avoidance of it. Yet such an indirect account is over-determined within the text of Theorizing and presented under the guise of something else. *5 The whole text either answers to the oneness of Being which it posits by displaying the phasing of the ‘clearing of Being’ or else it is an empty promise. It is one thing to say Being is One and another to show it - to show it one must indicate how Being may be One - that is indicate the phasing of Being within its clearing. Many authors point through their diagrammatics rather than their categories toward the phasing of Being. *6 The phasing of Being is the positing of an underlying structure that allows us to picture the possibility of numerical oneness and thus somehow itself refers beyond numerical oneness to a non-numerical singular. For this reason, many authors have 4 Studies in the Ontology of Emergence - Part 2 seemed to prefer not to categorize it, but instead to intend it through the interstices between categories. It is intended through the question of where the diagrammaticity of the categories gets its unity - why these particular categories in this manner and no more? Blum diagrams the Western philosophical tradition in terms of the classical and scholastic partition of subjects into Dialectic, Grammar (ethics), Logic (aesthetics/description), Rhetoric, lining these up with the topical names Plato, Aristotle, Descartes and Hume, whose philosophies he sets about to reconstruct. One might be tempted to retrieve through a structural hermeneutics the motif underlying this or other similar diagrammatic constructions which indicate the phasing of Being. Yet, it will be enough here to build an icon of that motif which though crassly visible might serve as a guide for such an interpretation. [2.3] The advent of the ‘clearing of Being’ has been prepared for by the considerations broached in the first section. By the ‘clearing of Being’ is meant something other than what Heidegger means by this phrase ‘clearing in Being’. Heidegger intends the "clearing" *6 like a clearing in *7 a forest which is created by Process Being acting as a horizon to the existence of Dasein. What I intend is something more primordial which underlies this phenomena. By ‘clearing’ is meant a cancellation in the sense of effacing traces as in “clear the decks”. *8 The cancellation of Being occurs like the canceling out of equal terms in an equation of mathematics. {It may be an annihilation as when matter and anti-matter negate each other leaving nothing or perhaps just side effects of their mutual destruction.} Being cancels itself by having equivalent 5 Studies in the Ontology of Emergence - Part 2 yet differentiated states which may be set over and against each other transformationally. {We signify this cancellation by writing “clearing of Being” under erasure as clearing of Being (crossed out).} It is the very collapsing *9 through one another of these states by which Being is cleared so that there is clarification and what lies beyond the clearing in Being is shown up or disclosed. {The clearing in Being is a face of the world that appears in the emergent event where all the kinds of Being are combined into a single configuration that signifies a non-nihilistic distinction between the prior regime and an utterly new regime as paradigm change (Kuhn), or epsiteme change (Foucault) or as a new Epoch of Being (Heidegger).} This activity of cancellation which is not self-annihilation (e.g., rotation and Being for itself and in itself in the nothingness of Sartre) lies beyond {as the external coherence of} the "clearing" in which Dasein dwells that is made possible by Process Being as a horizon.