Tractate 17 : The Beginning - Theoretical Metaphysics - Introducing the Problem of the End (continued)
Theoretical Metaphysics as of the dawn of the new millennium
Where we left off: Volume II: Tractate 12: 1998 AD Symbiotic Panentheism
A Perceptual Shift for Humankind – A New Perception 2000 AD
The new perception of reality generated by this work establishes much regarding reality including:
- Nothingness is nothingness and as such both exists and has functionality as nothingness. Tractate 10: The Error of Heidegger
- From nothingness matter and energy emerge. Tractate 8: The Error of Einstein
- From nothingness time and space emerge. Tractate 8: The Error of Einstein
- Through nothingness, separation through exclusion becomes separation through inclusion.
Tractate 9: The Error of Russell.
This is where we left our undeclared examination of Theoretical Metaphysics and as such, this is where we must begin the process of understanding the method called ‘looking for a pattern’ which can assist us in comprehending the potential whole of reality as opposed comprehending what we wish the whole of reality to be.
Looking for a pattern
We begin the process of looking for a pattern of reality with Tractate 13: Metaphysical System # 28.
As we discovered, model building through the application of Ockham’s Razor provided us with the model of reality illustrated as:
The illustration of the individual existing within the physical universe which in turn is located within the purity of abstraction emerges as the ultimate accomplishment of applying Ockham’s Razor and Husserl’s reductionism. Attaining such a simplistic model using Ockham’s Razor is nothing short of generating the personification of simplicity itself and the beauty the Greeks assigned to such simplicity.
The first step the method ‘look for a pattern’ requires is to examine the concept of individuality. This step must be taken if we are to expand upon the outer fringes of Being/the Primal Force/the whole itself.
In order to examine individuality we have no choice but to begin by separating the elements of the model and then strip away parts of this diagram. This process will allow us to examine the model’s very core.
First the separation:
Through the process of discarding the outer layers from the fundamental model of reality we obtain the core. We thus obtain:
Which of course is: ‘being’/individuality/multiplicity.
In Tractate 8: The Error of Einstein, we found individuality to be a form of experience emerging from existence being wrapped in time generated by the physical. By traveling through the physical, the individual ‘became’. ‘Became’ what? was the question addressed within Tractate 8? The individual ‘became’ an entity of experience which itself wrapped ‘coherent time’ within itself. ‘Coherent time’, through the emergence of the individual became captured as an unique element, versus a universal fabric, of a timeless ‘location’. The individual gained a perception of being:
And thus we can take:
And replace it with:
Or for the purposes of simplicity, we now obtain:
Where
And
equals a unit of individuality from the beginning of its ‘virgin consciousness’ to the end of it’s experiencing ‘within’ the physical, a form of ‘taser’ beam (See Tractate 8: The Error of Einstein)
As such:
Becomes:
Which becomes:
In essence, we have a form of abstractual ‘constancy of time’/multiplicity of time versus a ‘seamlessness’ of time. Thus the concept of a ‘concrete/physical variability of time’/multiplicity of time emerged and the understanding regarding the multiplicity of time existing within the multiplicity of individuality gained a form of interactive potentiality within a location void universal time itself. In short, timeless existence becomes a rational concept worthy of our attention as philosophers – metaphysicians in particular, scientists – cosmologists in particular, and theists – ontologists in particular.
If we continue the pattern of adding layers to the model, what then would be the next step or diagram added to this sequential flow of ideas?
It would, could, may, and has the potential to be:
Now in fact this may not be the case at all.
We are most likely jumping ahead of ourselves and in our excitement, rushing into a symbolic representation, which has no merit. Now this is not to say the idea of what we wish to draw has no merit. What it says is simply what it says: the drawing, symbolic representation, may have no merit.
Setting aside the issue of merit at this point, we find we have two choices regarding an expanded view of the whole of reality. We can arbitrarily decide what the next drawing should be or we can use reason based upon an understanding regarding our perceptual development of reality. In short, we can use the arbitrary influenced by our personal hopes, emotions, beliefs, desires, personal preferences, … or we can us a technique known as ‘look for a pattern’.
