Tractate 6 : The Error of Kant (continued)

The Causal entity, be it human or otherwise, developing Causally takes on, in a simplistic sense, the following appearance when factoring in outside as well as internal interactions:

This entity of knowing runs throughout not only this tractate but all Tractates to date: Tractates 0 – 6.

Understanding the graphic of the entity acting in the Causal, we are now ready to move to the concept of the non-Causal.

The non-Causal

The metaphysician is not just a non-Causal individual but rather the metaphysician is a non-Causal individual who explores how the two, the abstract and the physical, the Causal and the non-Causal, interact.

With this understanding regarding the task of the metaphysician, we can now begin to understand the task uniquely confronting experts specializing in the three fields of Metaphysics. Such an understanding is not an exercise in futility nor is it an exercise in the realm of fantasy.

The lack of understanding regarding the process of subdividing the tasks of various metaphysicians is in fact the very reason Kant had difficulty formalizing his metaphysical system.

Metaphysics now becomes subdivided into three realms:

The Practical Metaphysician
One who understanding and defines how the Causal and the non-Causal work as a whole as described by the Theoretical Metaphysician.

The Metaphysical Engineer
One who lays out, constructs, or manages social systems founded upon the work of the Practical Metaphysician, founded upon an understanding of how the Causal and the non-Causal interact which in turn is based upon a metaphysical understanding of the whole.

Theoretical Metaphysician
One who expands the understanding of the Causal and non-Causal interrelationship and thus provides expanded metaphysical perceptions with which the Practical Metaphysician can work.

Kant understood what his task was in terms of being a Theoretical Metaphysician but Kant could not understand how Theoretical Metaphysics related to Practical Metaphysics nor could he understand just how his system of Critical Philosophy could be applied to reality itself through the process of Metaphysical Engineering.

Had Practical Metaphysics and Metaphysical Engineering been defined, Kant may have followed his theoretical perceptions to their obvious conclusions. We will examine such a trail within Tractate 10: Heidegger. Having observed the results his theoretical metaphysical system produced, Kant would have had no choice but to backtrack to his initial assumptions and then modified his theoretical system.

Eventually Kant, through the use of such a process, would have produced a viable system or Kant would have done as Zeno did: Kant would have proclaimed, he did not have the answer regarding ‘the’ viable system and would leave the task to future metaphysicians.

This would have resulted in:

  1. Philosophy continuing to recognize the significance of metaphysical research rather than proclaiming the demise of metaphysics.
  2. Establishing the understanding of future theoretical metaphysicians that perhaps ‘the’ metaphysical system incorporated both Kant’s active and Aristotle’s passive forms of action.

In addition to Kant’s lack of understanding regarding the three fields of metaphysics, Kant was caught up in the perceptions of the day. Kant believed his system was a system of singularity as opposed to multiplicity. Kant believed his system outlined the whole system, however, Kant was unable to model his system because he, as all metaphysicians up through his time, believed ‘a’ system, any system in order to be considered to be a system was required to fulfill the Aristotelian principle: all systems can be reduced to 1st principle.

Kant could not find 1st principle within his system. To Kant, a system, which continually changes, changes with the very observation of passive observation itself, is a fluid, dynamic, system within which it is impossible to identify 1st principle.

Within Kant’s metaphysical system, the individual cannot exist without the universe, the universe cannot exist without the creator, and the creator depends upon the observations of the individual for its change. In essence we have a vicious circle with no beginning and no end:

Such contradictions defy the parameters of a ‘Cartesian’ system, defy the parameters of a ‘closed’ system, defy the parameters of an Aristotelian system.

Within Kant’s metaphysical system there appears to be no 1st cause, no 1st principle, no 1st truth. Kant was stymied and that is, for the most part where Kant left his metaphysical development. The abrupt termination of the theoretical aspect regarding the further development of Kant’s metaphysical system was no different than what had occurred to Zeno when he simply said: Seamless ness and multiplicity exist but I have no idea of how it is they do so independent of each other. All I know is that it is obvious they do so. The function of theoretical metaphysicians is to expand our understanding regarding the abstract and the physical. Zeno did this. Aristotle did this, Boethius did this, Copernicus did this Leibniz did this, and now we see Kant did this also.

Our examination of philosophical history is not yet done. As we shall see, ‘being’ being ‘Being; symbiotic panentheism, is not a quantum leap in the development of theoretical metaphysics but rather simply one small step beyond those remaining for us to examine: Hegel, Russell, Einstein, Heidegger, Husserl, Hawking, and Ockham.

To better understand Kant’s dilemma and the solution to the dilemma we must examine one more region. We must examine the boundary between the Causal and the non-Causal.

The boundary between the Causal and the non-Causal

What we have is the causal sandwiched between the non-causal. There is another way of saying this however. It could be said the non-causal is separated from itself through a process of separation through inclusion.

Why would totality separate a portion of itself from itself? Interesting question and one that has been addressed generically in ‘Trilogy I’ and will be addressed in detail in future tractates. However, the intent of this tractate is to discuss Kant and the paradox his critical philosophy places before us rather than discuss the purpose of the separation.

So what of the boundaries?????

In the physical we examine multiplicity/individuality and theorize/wonder about seamlessness/singularity. In the abstract we must do the reverse. In the abstract we must examine seamlessness and theorize/wonder about multiplicity.

What does such a statement mean?

Lets begin by examining the more familiar of the two. We will examine the location where multiplicity is the more obvious, perhaps the more dominant characteristic. That location is of course, our reality, the universe.

Within the universe we observe through a process of examining cross sections of time. In short we take multiple cross sections and by examining them we can project as to what might happen within future cross sections. If we find our projections are correct we attempt to establish laws allowing us to make even more futuristic projections.

It is the cross sections, which dominate our thoughts. It is the cross sections, which we categorize, photograph, examine, and file away for future references. All the while we wonder about the ‘seamless’. We wonder what it means to be void multiplicity., wonder what seamlessness means in terms of a totally seamless abstractual flow of reality.

Kant led us to the apogee of such wonders. Kant theorized what it means to reformulate our perceptions of the abstract into an active system where everything found within the system impacts the system. Kant went so far as to say that even the simply act of observing the system impacts the system. This was contrary to the metaphysical system existing at the time. The Aristotelian system of the time maintained that the system was passive and thus the observer did not impact the system through observation.

In essence Kant suggested it is significant to understand the seamlessness of totality when examining the ‘whole system’. Since Kant had no other location within which to place such an observation, Kant found he had no other choice but to place such an observation within the universe. Such a choice however suggests that a selection had to be made regarding Kant’s metaphysical system being ‘the’ system or Aristotle’s metaphysical system being ‘the’ system.

This brings us back again to Zeno’s paradox: Which is it, seamlessness or multiplicity?

This brings us back to our graphic and allows us to add an additional parameter:

Now we see the physical affects the observer and the observer affects the physical. In essence, the physical affects the abstract and the abstract affects the physical. As such we begin to understand the meaning of our previous statement:

In the physical we examine multiplicity and theorize/wonder about seamlessness/abstraction.

If there is no observer then there is no impact of the observer upon the physical and as such the physical functions simply within the parameters of physical laws. As such we can and logically do take cross sections of the universe and examine them for what they are, cross section of a physical immersed in space and time. The very fact that the physical is immersed in the fabric of space and time allows us to take the cross section of time itself. In fact it is logical to do so within the universe itself, within the physical itself.

But what of the abstract, the non-causal? Is it found only ‘within’ the causal and how is it to be examined? Can we take cross sections of the non-causal and examine them as we take cross sections of the physical and examine them? This brings us back to the statement:

In the abstract we must do the reverse. In the abstract we must examine seamlessness and theorize/wonder about multiplicity.

This statement suggests the examination of the abstract becomes a form of reverse process to the process we find functional in the physical.

If we take a previous statement:

…the physical affects the observer and the observer affects the physical.

And shift some of the words we get a glimpse of the solution to our previous statement regarding the abstract. Shifting the words we obtain:

…the observer affects the physical and the physical affects the observer.

For this to happen we need to add the following to our graphic:

So it is the physical once again becomes sandwiched between the abstract. The result is that Kant’s system leads us towards a duel system not a single system. Kant’s system leads us towards ‘being’ being ‘Being’

So what do we observe if we take a cross section of the abstract? We see:

  1. What is
  2. The future does not exist within the abstract.
  3. The future has no potentiality within the abstract void a universe whose fabric is time.
  4. The past exists
  5. The present exists
  6. The future does not exist
  7. What ‘is’ is
  8. What ‘was’ is
  9. What ‘will be’ is
  10. What ‘could be’ is not
  11. Potentiality is not

The ‘Absolute Zero’ point of abstraction:
Just as the physical has its point of ‘absolute zero’, so too does abstraction.

The point of absolute zero for the physical is speculated by science to be ‘0’ degrees Kelvin. This is more definitively defined as the point when all energy is equally distributed universally both macroscopically and microscopically.

What then is the absolute zero point of the abstract? The absolute zero point of abstraction is when all knowledge is equally distributed within the abstract. If no new knowledge is introduced into the system the system soon reaches a point of equilibrium similar to the equilibrium reached at absolute zero Kelvin in the physical. In short, rather than a lack of fresh energy transfer from one physical entity to another, we find a lack of fresh knowledge transfer from one to another. Put in a different manner: We find stagnation is achieved.

Is there ‘an’ energy source to keep the physical system dynamic? That is the realm of science and science has no answer to this question at this point in time.

Is there ‘a’ knowledge source to keep the abstract dynamic? This is the realm of metaphysics and metaphysics had no theory up to and through the combined efforts of Kant and Hegel. But what about now at this point in time? Beginning with the turn of the millennium, metaphysics has a theory regarding the source of such knowledge. The theory is ‘being’ being ‘Being’, symbiotic panentheism, a fusion of the Kantian/Hegelian and Aristotelian systems as presented in this work: The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perceptions.

The absolute zero point of multiplicity is attained when the stagnation point of energy transfer is achieved.

At this point all motion stops and time and distance cease since no relative motion is occurring. Time after all is:

And if d, distance, is something no longer travelable and thus no longer measurable, it no longer exists and as such ‘t’ no longer exists. What then of ‘v’? ‘v’ is simply a coefficient and as seen in the first formula becomes:

Due to the constraints of time we will leave the phenomenal metaphysical potential of 0 / 0 to Tractate 8: Hegel.

Finite time / Infinite knowledge

Infinite knowledge within Finite time

We now come back to Kant’s metaphysical system:

Universe / endless knowledge

The universe is ‘0’ for the universe, without the observer, is simply passivity of observation

Which brings us back to boredom, endless repetition.

Second: Aristotle

Infinite time / Finite knowledge

Finite knowledge within infinite time

We now come back to Aristotle’s metaphysical system:

Which brings us back to boredom, endless repetition.

The question becomes: How do we eliminate the boredom????

Third: the fusion of the two

The elimination of endless repetition, the elimination of boredom

The result of fusing the two systems into a complete system:

The elimination of endless repetition, boredom, stagnation, …

The result of fusing the two systems into a complete system:

The emergence of birth, change, renewal, …

At last we achieve the elimination of the most insidious form regarding the four states of existence. We eliminate the existence of the simple state of being as the dominant form of existence. We eliminate the perception of permanent equilibrium, multiplicity, the passive, physical objectives being the point towards which all action tends and in its place we find change, seamlessness, the active, abstractual objectives being the point towards which all action tends.

The two states of existence remaining are both similar in nature for each embraces the state of our new constant called change:

  1. Growth
  2. Decay

What does the new metaphysical system of ‘being’ being ‘Being’ suggest regarding the two remaining states of existence? The fusion of the Kantian system and the Aristotelian system suggest we best think long and hard about our responsibilities for the choice of the two remaining forms of existence is dependent upon us, is up to us to decide as to which will prevail through the application of free will itself.

God does not change
Collective Thought, ‘Being’, ‘God’ reaches it’s point of ‘absolute zero’ when it reaches it’s point of no longer changing.

Keep in mind however that there is no time, distance, space, matter, or energy found in the fabric of abstraction within which the universe is imbedded verses there being time and distance existing as the fabric of the universe, existing as the fabric ‘within’ which matter and energy are immersed.

We are not debating the concept, of which is which. We are not debating whether time and distance are innate characteristics of matter and energy or whether matter and energy are innate characteristics of time and distance.

What we are examining is the apparent paradox of change occurring in a region incapable of changing. Such a statement emerges from this new metaphysical system where there is a ‘location’ for the void of time and the void of space since what is ‘is’ and ‘what could be’ has potentiality but as yet ‘is not’ rather ‘what could be’ is simply capable of potentially being.

Any newness of knowledge must be just that ‘new’ and thus incapable of being ‘known’ by an ‘all knowing’, omniscient, entity in terms of ‘divine foreknowledge’.

The future does not exist
Only the present exists. Potentiality in the present exists only as potentiality. We call such emergence of potentiality: the future. Storage of the present exists, we call it the past. But the past is gone and we cannot change it. The future is yet to come and until it comes we cannot impact it. We can only impact the present. Only the present exists as location of cause and effect.

Lets re-examine the drawing with knowledge as our focus:

If we expand upon the apparent existence of the present, we obtain:

As small as potentiality becomes it has in fact not become any smaller for it never was.

As large as the present appears to become within the whole it takes up no space for the present is but a fleeting moment in time so small it is no more distinguishable from the whole of knowledge than a point is distinguishable from the whole of space.

If the future does not yet exist, we can examine the metaphysical system of a non-Cartesian system powered by a Cartesian system, ‘being’ being ‘Being’, symbiotic panentheism, through the process of examining ‘still’ shots of the system. In essence we can view the active system by examining cross sections of this active system through a picture of the system in a passive form. Keep in mind, however, that the system is not passive/stagnant but rather active/dynamic.

As such let’s look at one such passive graphic of the dynamic system. We will examine the system in terms of what happens to the future when we take a passive slice of the system.

We recognize the graphic as being what we had previously diagramed:

Because this is a slice of what exists, we can remove the elements, which do not pertain to the picture since they do not exist in terms of existence itself but rather exist only in terms of potentiality.

In fact the bubble of potentiality disappears and the past merges into the present for the past becomes what presently is. We thus obtain:

Such a graphic arises out of the metaphysical system of ‘being’ being ‘Being’, symbiotic panentheism

One may recognize the graphic of ‘being’ being ‘Being’ as a more simplistic negative/inverse image of the previous diagram.

What does such a system imply about the current theoretical concept of parallel universes infinitely branching off from each ‘choice’ we make. Does another universe begin at the juncture of each of our decisions?

Such a concept is not being dismissed as ‘an impossibility’, however, within the metaphysical system of ‘being’ being ‘Being’, such an occurrence would now have ‘a’ location ‘outside the physical/the universe ‘within’ which it could function in an active manner. Such an occurrence might take the appearance of:

Such existences, should they in fact occur, would belong to the region of ‘what will be’ versus "what ‘could be"

As we can see, within a metaphysical system of ‘being’ being ‘Being’, the future only takes on a function when the system is dynamic through the process of action itself. The obligatory branching ‘off’ of other universes from the original ‘choice’ simply makes the obligatory branch itself pre-determined. Since we discussed ‘pre-determinism’ within the Tractate 3: Boethius and Free Will, we will not go there other than to say such existences are not examples of potentiality but rather examples of absolutism. More of absolutism and its component of minimalism as represented by the absolute zero of the absolute can be found within the section, ‘ The ‘Absolute Zero’ point of abstraction’, found previously within this tractate.

The past does not exist
What of the past? How can we say the past does not exist? When we take a cross section of the given dynamic system of ‘being’ being ‘Being’, we obtain an understanding that the present expands to include the past. We observed a similar occurrence when we observed the result as the present moved inward to occupy the position of the future. The process demonstrated that the future, in a passive system, does not exist.

Such an understanding explains why the small bubble of the future can now be completely removed. Simultaneously we now understand how it is the present expands to incorporate ‘what was’ within the region of ‘what is’ for the past was and the past now is. The graphic then becomes:

Such a depiction is what it is, a graphic cross section of a dynamic system, a passive view of the system.

What is exists
If we move the system back into the mode of being a dynamic system, we come back to:

If we then reduce the present, a period of time so short it is but an illusion – albeit a ‘real illusion’ - of time, to what it truly is within a dynamic system, we obtain:

This diagram demonstrates the present to be just what the present is, such a small element of existence that it in essence does not exist ‘in’ anything rather it is an ‘active’ boundary separating potentiality from existence.

Such a representation is appropriately expressed by the graphic depiction of a circle, where the inside of the circle is the future/potentiality and the outside of the circle is the past, what exists. The circle itself is composed of points equidistance from a single point of potentiality. Since all points have no length, depth, or width, the circle itself is in essence non-existent or simply a separation of ‘what is’ and ‘what could be’.

Simplified in terms of regions this becomes:

In terms of knowledge, as a passive system, this becomes:

Or simply "being’ being’ and since this is a passive system, action becomes simply the state of being and thus non-italicized form of being representing action.

If we move the passive representation of the system to that of being a dynamic system of active action, we obtain:

Or ‘being’ being, where being is italicized to represent action in a dynamic sense, an active sense. With the addition of potentiality/the future, we retain knowledge as it exists and obtain knowledge, as it could exist.