Arwanak, 2024
tags: ontology, non-dualism, post-humanism, subjective death
Entities of Being
The question of the entities of Being, is perhaps the start of an Ontological Civil War. One which is not won, but rather unified as the necessary pre-condition of performative realities-as a cosmic play in which the Universal of Being acts as the actors, the audience and the scenographer. Firstly, we acknowledge the Act of Perception. In perceiving, the I comes to engage with the World. Engaging is the basic entanglement of one’s self with the object. In Entanglement, the mode of operation is of that of a Certainty in the immediacy of The Sensuous Plane of Certain-There.
This Plane is like that of an actual Plane-the objects are arranged as they are supposed to be, and they appear as naturally flowing into the desired state that we perceive them in. The trees are naturally placed in the forest, and the farmer is naturally tending his fields on the Plane of immediate vision. The experiential Perception of the Certain-There is made chained to Language, which contains the descriptors which we may use to appropriate the immediacy. Language is thus made chained to the sensuous immediacy of the Certain-There and the I describes the Certain-there as Certain in-itself. The Certainty comes from Lived Experience in Time, and we have encountered the Objectivity of the object in the past. Entanglement, therefore, is nothing but the linguistic experience projected into the Universal. The There of the forest has been encountered in time before, and in turn, we have the Universal of the Forest engrained in the linguistic Universal. Similarly, the Now of the the Sensuous Plane of Immediacy, is made as the movement of the Worldly Spirit. The Now is immediately projected into the Plane as well.
This then asks the ontological question of: “How is space and time projected into the World from the Lived Experience?”. More precisely, the question becomes honed on the ontological position of Space and Time in that which is Lived. As an example, if we posses the Universal in Linguistic Discourse, then the spatiality of the Universal is something that exists uniquely as the Dealing of Immediacy with US, or the unmonopolized I. The Inference therefore from phenomenological analysis, is that Language points ontologically to the spatial and temporal in a way way which produces Distance-that of the numerical Distance of the I from the Certain-There in measurements of spatial distance (mm, cm, m, km) and in time (Past, Present, Future). We are assailed thus, into the three-way Ontological Civil War of time, space and I. What would this war point to then?
We naturally are inclined to the Real that makes Reality, since if time and space are out in the There, that must mean that the Real is something which is in the Uncertain-There. The Uncertain-There is on a another Sensuous-plane and on such a plane, the basic mode of Lived Experience is anxious-uncertainty. In the Uncertain-There, the senses are not living in the immediacy, but rather in the excess of the Linguistic Universal. This invites anxiety and doubt to the natural state of the Uncertain-There. The I cannot affirm that the Uncertain-There is in the There of the Immediate Sensuous Plane of the I, for it is outside the Universal in some regard; the Particular has not yet arrived to fill the Universalization of Lived Experience and is not There in the immediacy of the plane. We then have two Sensuous Planes, the Certain-There and Uncertain-There. This we regard as the basic fronts of the Ontological Civil War, for whom Reality is the Earth where it is fought.
The War Itself: Deception
The immediate question is now that of the War itself and how it is fought. We must be careful here, as the War is something which is by-itself neither a subjectively absorbed idealistic conflict of Substance failing to understand itself fully, nor the struggle of militant realism against the subjective failure of epistemological closure. The I of the subject has no burden to prove that the Uncertain-There is Real, for it is in the immediacy of The There before, and yet-still of Universal Linguistic discourse. The phenomenological assertion is such that the Uncertain-There does touch immediacy in its plane of the Certain-There. This is operative is found in spatial and temporal distance, for the act of Perceptive Universalizing is the engine which closes the Distance; we may know that in the Certain-There that it is not snowing in Summer, however the Winter is already in the Spring from the Past, and is not an event which comes out of the Future purely. The truth of the Universal of Space and Time is that the sense-certainty of the Certain-There affirms that the Uncertain is actually there in the Universal itself. The act of Perception, by itself, closes the distance between Certain and Uncertain, or to put it visually, the subject and the object.
How may we justify such an assertion of affirmation? We can immediately point to the act of Deception. Deception, in its simplest is the the adding or subtraction of the Universalized Language of Certain-There. However the Nature of the Certain-There, by its spatiality and temporality allows for a tolerance of Deception. Self-Deception in particular, becomes the main engine of the movement of ontology. Distance is nothing but the act of counting, from counting minutes and seconds to meters and centimetres. And what is counting other than adding and subtracting? To add is to Universalize the Certain-There, and we thereby arrive to the conclusion that the Universal affirms Distance, making it compact in Certainty and finally we infer, that the Deception of Certainty is the closing of Distances between the planes of Certain and Uncertain-There.
The Ontological Civil War is fought as an operation of Deception. Deception is not to be confused as Illusion, as Illusion is that which is inherently unreflective and untransparent. The concept of Truth is directly related to Deception, and it is important we do not divorce Deception from Truth, as we risk the collapse of ontology into an inert relativism. The analytical Truth is that which can by-itself be Universalized into Language. The truth is transparent as it is “bright”, for it is not “dark”. It is bright in Language; we can describe what is bright with the Universal. Truthfulness is by some extent, not true for the Real. However, Deception is True in Certainty. In a an art gallery, it is simply truthful to say that “the painting Deceived the viewer”, as the Deception something which is moving along with the Reflection of being Truthful. Deception is, to reiterate, ontological.
We have now confirmed how the War is fought, that being by Deception. The new question is that of the Meaning of the War: “What is the conclusion of the War? and For who is the War made to be? ” That is the final puzzle of Ontology, and it is perhaps something which links back to the utmost primordial encounter with Lived Experience. If we take the question primordially, we can take a new metaphor for ourselves, that of a performative play of ontology that inherently entails a subjective death. The image we are left with is that of a play of performative Reality. The actors, the audience and the writer of the play are all simply, Lived Experience moving along with Language. The Language is constantly dramatized, but not without substance. It is substantial, and ultimately provides meaning as an ontology which entails the play of reality.
Bibliography:
Kant, Immanuel: Critique of Pure Reason
Hegel, G.W.F: The Phenomenology of Spirit
Heidegger, Martin: Being and Time
Husserl, Edmund: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology
Meillassoux, Quentin: After Finitude
Hyperpsych 