1. A metaphysical understanding regarding the linear relationship which exists between time and distance and the relationship which exists between inverse time and inverse distance must be established.
2. A metaphysical understanding must be established bridging Hegel and Einstein. The bridge to be built is a metaphysical understanding rationalizing the linear relationship which exists between the direct proportionality of time and distance using Newtonian physics. Once having built the bridge using the linear concepts of Newtonian physics we will be able to explore the significance of quadratic concepts suggested by Einsteinian physics. The mathematics of Newton and Einstein led to the confirmation of both Aristotelian Cartesianism and Kant/Hegelian non-Cartesianism. The results of this confrontation lead to a new metaphysical system incorporating both Aristotelian and Kant/Hegelian concepts.

Where do we begin this tedious process of understanding the primitive relationship of Newtonian metaphysics and Einsteinian metaphysics? We begin with Hegel.

Expanding knowing revisited
History does not direct us, as Hegel suggested, for to be ‘directed’ and then to have no choice but to follow is simply determinism. for ‘To follow’ implies the path has already been established..

We direct history through our actions of free will. History is simply a directional vector of human action and as with all vectors, the direction the vector points can change with a change of any one of the two components creating the vector.

To change the direction of a history vector requires energy input as does ‘changing’ any vector. The energy required to change the history vector must originate from the element from creating the history vector. The questions then become: What is the element/vertex from which the vector itself emanates and what are the two components comprising the history vector of humanity?

Whether one is a determinist or a believer in free will, the answer is the same: The element/vertex from which the history vector emanates is the entity of knowing, the entity capable of awareness of the history vector itself and capable of intentionally applying energy to the vector in an attempt to change the history vector’s direction.

The history vector can be described as a combination of actions generated by the passive state of ‘perception’ and the active state of action generated by the entity of knowing. The operative term here is not ‘action’ nor is the operative term ‘perception’. The operative term is ‘generates’. We thus obtain a history vector emerging from an identified source and driving through time through the action the source initiates. The process is a three step process:

1. Perception generates action.
2. Actions generate reactions.
3. Reactions generate social ambience.

The result of steps one through three is the creation of a history vector which may quiver as it moves through time but which does not, cannot, change its resultant direction unless the source of the vector itself changes its perception of itself.

The two components creating the history vector of humankind involve two operative words:

1. The first operative word in the three step process is explicit in nature.
The first operative word is ‘perception’. To ‘change’ the direction of the vector one must change perception. To leave perception as it is and to change action may cause change but it is only temporary change for the perception remains as it was and eventually actions will revert to the natural function of their natural emergence from perception. The result: Without changing perception, the long-term change of human action remains ineffectual.

2. The second operative word in the three step process is implicit in nature.
The second operative word is ‘change’. If the product of perception is not what one chooses to change then one should not ‘change’ perception. If the history vector of humankind is pointed straight and true towards its mark, is pointed in the direction one wishes humanity would continue, then one should declare the death of metaphysics and be done with it.

Strangely enough, ‘action’, singular, is not one of the operative words of this three step process for action ‘follows’ perception. ‘Reactions’, plural, are not one of the operative words for ‘reactions’ follows ‘action’. And finally, ‘social ambience’ is not one of the operative words for it is neither a verb nor is it a base component because ‘social ambience’ emerges from the concept of vast numbers of ‘reactions’ within society.

Philosophy, with the acceptance of Hegel’s metaphysical system being ‘the’ ultimate of metaphysical systems, declared the death of metaphysics and as such has attempted to be done with metaphysics other than giving metaphysics tokenistic acknowledgement. But to be done with metaphysics has been a more difficult task than originally expected. Although philosophers may wish to be done with metaphysics, humanity subconsciously relates to the concept of meta – beyond physics – the physical. Humanity has not embraced the existence of the history vector which appears so overtly human. Humanity has not accepted the violent and aggressive desire to dominate and subjugate which humanity finds coursing rampantly through its veins.

As such it is humanity, which has refused to ‘let go’ of metaphysics and it is humanity, which refuses to let the majority of the intellectuals rule what is to be the direction towards which the vector of human action points. Humanity remains idealistically hopeful regarding the principle direction its actions will eventually take. Humanity senses its true nature lies in compassion, tolerance, and pluralism versus its present day primitive state of harsh exclusionism and aggressive desires to dominate. Humanity senses the conflict existing between these two states remains a conflict because we lack an understanding, a perception, of the whole of reality and humanity senses that it is the understanding of the whole of reality which will change our perception of the whole of reality being simply the physical. In short humanity is doing its best to protect its sense of its true nature, its sense that it, humanity, is deep-down by nature compassionate, tolerant, pluralistic, and inclusive. Humanity has shown great resolve in preserving the idealistic perception it has of itself. Humanity intuitively senses the significance of individuality/multiplicity being ‘the’ ultimate of meaning for itself as opposed to society/singularity and until someone comes along and rationally explains why society/singularity is not the true nature of humanity, the history vector of humankind will continue to precariously point towards individuality/multiplicity being the course humanity is to travel. The history vector appears to be evenly split between the concept of the individual and that of society being the ultimate significance. The vector is susceptible to a shift causing it to point more significantly towards one or the other. Humanity is waiting, eagerly, and at times despairingly for a rationalization of its, humanity’s, importance.

With the significance regarding the inner human turmoil having been verbalized we can now begin examining the forces composing the history vector of humanity:



If resistance to change is high and development of new perceptions is low the vector becomes the ‘x’ axis. If resistance to change is low and development of new perceptions is high the vector becomes the ‘y’ axis.

In both instances constancy of consistency becomes the base to social behavior. The constancy is either complete predictability or completely unpredictability.

Hegel sensed we must accept what it is we learn as we move throughout history as opposed to discarding all and beginning anew.

‘His (Hegel’s) aim is rather to construct a new system, a new philosophy, a theory which will include all that is positive, every conceptual advance.’ Before and After Hegel, Tom Rockmore, p. 2, 1993.

If we are to follow the metaphysical path Hegel suggested, it would appear we must find a metaphysical system incorporating Aristotle through Kant – Cartesianism as well as Hegel through the present – non-Cartesianism.

In short, to accomplish Hegel’s goals, we must incorporate the two fundamental metaphysical systems which presently exist both in the sense of their simultaneously existing yet in the sense of their existing independently. This leads us to two possible choices ‘separation through exclusion’ or ‘separation through inclusion’. The issue regarding the metaphysical ‘separation through exclusion’ versus ‘separation through inclusion’ is fully addressed in Tractate 9: Russell and Tractate 13: Metaphysical Systems.

Tractates one through seven addressed paradoxes put forward by past great metaphysical thinkers. The question becomes: Is it possible to incorporate the intuitions of Zeno, Aristotle, Boethius, Copernicus, Leibniz, Kant, and Hegel into one system? Examining our present metaphysical perceptions the answer appears to be: We presently have no metaphysical perception, which incorporates all such past philosophical intuitions and the presently existing metaphysical systems which incorporate the thoughts of these great thinkers themselves are riddled with major philosophical paradoxes. The reason the present day fundamental metaphysical systems find themselves riddled with major philosophical paradoxes is that the presently existing metaphysical options each profess to be ‘the’ system and as such exclude the competing systems as being invalid systems. In short, the present day fundamental systems which compete for the status of being ‘the’ ultimate metaphysical system, all operate within the framework of ‘separation through exclusion’ one from the other as opposed to ‘separation through inclusion’ of all. All our present day fundamental metaphysical models reject some aspect/s of the others.

In short, metaphysically we as a specie are ignoring Hegel’s 1st principle: Do not exclude what we have learned from the past but rather build upon what it is we have learned.

Resolutions to the paradoxes which riddle the presently recognized metaphysical models would then appear to lie in a different approach than ‘separation through exclusion’. If we incorporate a process of separation through inclusion we find it is possible to build a metaphysical model capable of incorporating past intuitions of great thinkers without the simultaneous development of major philosophical paradoxes. Such a model was examined in terms of resolving the paradoxes created by such metaphysical thinkers as Zeno, Aristotle, Boethius, Copernicus, Leibniz, Kant, and Hegel in Tractates 0 – 7 found in this work: The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception.

Through the process of examining the previous seven metaphysical thinkers it becomes apparent that Hegel reopens the system, which Aristotle closed and thus Hegel brings us full circle, bring us back once again to Zeno:



Granted there is now ‘more’ ‘inside’ the system but the system remains as Zeno saw it – open.

So what lies beyond the physical, beyond (meta -) physical (- physics)?

The constant (k) variable:

a. The ‘constant’ factor of variability
The ‘variable’ constant, the ‘constant consistency of change’, or the ‘constant variable’, they are all the same. The three phrases describe the same perceptions from different points of view. One is the tail of the elephant, one is the ear of the elephant, and the other is the trunk of the elephant as ‘viewed’ by the same blind man.

All three concepts: