Principium II: Nihil procedit in Omnia

 
Nothing proceeds into the Whole.

Following the first principle, the Whole is self-contained.  This would seem to imply the presence of some kind of definitive boundary that one could trace around the Whole, thus distinguishing it from any object not-of-the-Whole. 

On the one hand, the Whole, being self-contained, requires nothing external to it in order to thrive and sustain itself.  On the other hand, the Whole possesses no metaphysical boundary with which to contain its contents.  But this apparent contradiction lies in the use of prepositional concepts, which is not entirely adequate for comprehending the Whole.

The common assumption that an existent  ‘comes into existence’ arises because of the use prepositional concepts which are inappropriately applied to existence itself.  And this is due to treating existence as if it were a reified existent. 

It must be remembered at all times that prepositional concepts in reference to the Whole is strictly provisional.  What is being sought in ontological inquiry is an understanding of the nature of the Whole as the Whole—not seeking knowledge of one select reified portion within the universal Whole (i.e., any particular existent). 

Prepositional language cannot provide an ultimate description of the Whole, but rather it serves as a penultimate stage in gaining insight into the nature of the Whole.  In this context, prepositional concepts may be asserted provisionally, but only in order to be negated later (dialectically), in order to bring one face-to-face with the absolute irreducibility of the Whole.

Though existent and existence are intimately interrelated, the ontological order of the two are radically different.  Existence itself cannot be reified—rather, existence is the ontological field in which the reification of (and the thinking about) each and every existent is made possible. 

Thus, figurative language can only describe the Whole to a certain point before the analogy necessarily breaks down—no existent can ever serve as a perfect analogy to adequately represent the Whole.  And yet the Whole can be described in no other way but by imperfect analogy (there is no other mode of description).

Within this self-contained Whole, no existent ‘comes into existence’ from something not-of-the-Whole.  There is no boundary that demarcates the difference between the Whole and a hypothetical not-of-the-Whole—against what could the Whole be distinguished, since the existence cannot be a reified existent?  

The material and activity contained within the Whole is not injected from beyond the Whole and into it.  To assert this is to be misled by prepositional language and concepts which mask the radical irreducibilty of the Whole.  

As stated earlier, the Whole is the sum of all forms (spatial and temporal).  Just as for the Whole there is no creation ex nihilo, so also no form is created ex nihilo.

It is far too simple to think of causality as a sequential chain of reified events.  Instead, the Whole is comprised of an intricate web of interconnected events that all mutually support one another.  Human beings, out of necessity, must reduce causality into a smaller number of sequential causal ‘chains,’ relying on reification to gain some small degree of knowledge about the world around them. 

Reification in and of itself is not a false way of gaining knowledge of the myriad forms within the Whole (in fact, it is often necessary for everyday events), but ‘meta-physical problems’ crop up when we misapply the reification of the existent to existence itself.

If the objects within the Whole do not come from ‘elsewhere’ (as there is no object that is not-of-the-Whole), then from where do they come?  The things that comprise the Whole are forms, traceable (to the extent that the rational mind is able) within the dense web of causality.  Material and energy are transformed and transferred, and, from this perspective, each existent is inseparable from the remainder of the Whole—like an ecosystem, but on an entirely different scale and order.  Not one element can be removed from the Whole without resulting in the entire collapse of it.

Thus, there are two equally true perspectives that correspond to two different ontological orders:  [1] The view from form, from which one may inquire into the existent, i.e. the empirical world, and [2] the view from the Whole, which cannot be approached in the same way as a reified object of empirical study. 

The method of ontological inquiry is not as straightforward as empirical investigation.  It requires a dialectical approach, by positing and negating assertions (here, in the positing and negating of prepositional concepts).  This process is not merely to lead to a new assertion that represents a ‘third way,’ bringing one to a supposedly closer understanding of the Whole, but rather to eventually bring one to the shock of an existential real-isation the Whole—the absolute irreducibility of existence itself.

In the view from the Whole, the inquiring individual is not understood as separate from the Whole, but as an integral expression arising from the Whole itself.  It is in this sense that the individual is the Whole (this will be discussed much later).

From the view from form, one can speak of being born, but only nominally.  But, ontologically speaking, ‘being born’ is not a matter of ‘coming into existence’ but of being formed from the web of the Whole—the same web from which a person’s parents and their parents, and so on were also formed.  And this is just to delineate only one simple strand of causality out of many others that led to the formation that particular individual.  And so from the view of the Whole, no one is ever ‘born’ in the sense of ‘coming into existence.’ 

 

This points to the radical, seamless ontological inseparability of each and every form from the Whole, and also of each and every form to one another.  The various implications of this ontological inseparability will be further explored by continuing to inquire into the principles that will follow.

The glory of the heavens

Gazing at the star-filled sky, the ancients were filled with awe.  If there were a home for the gods, they said, it would be here, up in these remote ‘heavens.’  These first astronomers traced the geometrical paths of the stars, planets and other ‘heavenly bodies’—and they believed their own paths were bound with those of the gods. 

On any given clear night, we can still look up at these very same heavens that amazed the ancient world.  True, the gods have been long absent—yet the numinous wonder of it all remains.

Principium 1: Nihil extra Omnia

  
Nothing exists outside the Whole.  

The Whole is the sum total of each existent, in all its spatial and temporal aspects, including all its self-governing laws.

The Whole is not an existent, but the entire field of existence itself, and as such can only be described as an existent provisionally.

One cannot inquire into universal existence as one might inquire into a delimited particular existent.

One may easily identify a particular apple and likewise identify all things particularly not-apple.  Each existent is derived from the Whole itself.  But the Whole encompasses every particular existent, and so there is no not-of-the-Whole from which one may differentiate or delimit.

In stating the principle, Nothing exists outside the Whole, this ‘nothing’ is not to be understood as a void that the Whole resides within.  Rather, it indicates that the Whole does not possess any fixed boundary beyond which a differentiated not-of-the-Whole exists, or could possibly exist.

Unlike an existent, existence does not possess the attributes of ‘inside’ or ‘outside.’  The Whole, therefore, is all-inclusive: There is no existent that is not already ‘within’ and derived from the Whole (whether one is aware of or understands any particular existent or not).

The all-inclusiveness of the Whole renders the presence of a creator god a logical impossibility, since it too would be encompassed by the Whole, thus contradicting any definition of a creator god.  For the same reason, any super-natural or meta-physical world cannot be posited as something ‘beyond’ the Whole.

Spatially, the Whole is necessarily self-sufficient, since there is nothing but the Whole—and so it cannot be contingent on anything not-of-the-Whole.  Not-of-the-Whole necessarily does not exist and necessarily cannot exist.

Temporally, the Whole as the Whole has neither precedent nor antecedent: The Whole never was, nor will be.

Causes may be identified (from of a complex causal web, not merely a sequential chain), found in fluctuating events occurring within the Whole.  But as for the Whole itself, it cannot be derived causally from any presumed not-of-the-Whole.  The Whole irreducibly Is.

Because of this ontological irreducibility, discursive language and thought is inadequate to posit the Whole in any absolute sense.

A direct, discursive understanding of the Whole is impossible because a discursive approach requires reification—that is, the ability to differentiate between one existent and another.

Discursive understanding is adept at distinguishing the individual existent as well as the rational relationship between one existent and another.  But on a deeper, more fundamental level, such a mode of inquiry is ontologically inappropriate.

However, this does not mean that discursive reason has no place in ontological inquiry, but rather that its role is a negative one.  In such an inquiry, language is employed not to assert positive statements regarding the Whole. Rather, it is through the negation of attributes appropriate only to the existent that the transparency of the Whole may be real-ised.

In such an inquiry, one may only provisionally posit the attributes commonly ascribed to the existent, such as ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ (spatially or temporally).  It is especially this inappropriate use of prepositions (spatial and temporal metaphors) that lead to confusion regarding the relationship between the existent and existence.

Provisional assertions should be entertained only in order to test and discover for oneself that such characteristics do not and cannot be attributed to the Whole.  By doing so, one may recognise that treating existence ultimately the same way as an existent is nonsensical.

It is from this inability to distinguish between existent and existence that certain misleading metaphysical assumptions about the self and the world enter one’s thinking.

In the inquiry of the Whole, such ontological assumptions are to be examined, challenged and deconstructed, with the constructive aim of real-ising of the Whole not merely conceptually, but existentially.

Principia Omnium: Preface to a philosophical work-in-progress

[F]rom all things one and from one thing all.
—Heraclitus, Fragment 124

There exists only one true account of inquiry: Is.
—Parmenides, Fragment 8

But the genus ‘that which exists’ in general, and has no term superior to it.  It is the first term in the classification of things, and all things are included under it. —Seneca, Epistulae, LVIII

Always remember the following: what the nature of the Whole is; what is my own nature; the relation of this nature to that; what kind of part it is of what kind of Whole; and that no man can hinder your saying and doing at all times what is in accordance with that Nature whereof you are a part.—Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, II.9

The One does not bear to be numbered in with anything else, with a one or a two or any such quantity; it refuses to take number because it is measure and not the measured… —Plotinus, Enneads, V.5.4

By that which is self-caused I mean that whose essence involves existence; or that whose nature can be conceived only as existing. —Spinoza, Ethica, Part I

Tao does nothing, / but leaves nothing undone.—Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, chapter 37

Each moment is all being, each moment is the entire world.  Reflect now whether any being or any world is left out of the present moment.—Dogen, Shobogenzo, ‘Uji’

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself. —Carl Sagan

For the past two years I have been preoccupied with what I call the Whole (or Omnia) and its relation to all the forms that comprise it.   Lately, I have been gradually clarifying the philosophical implications of this relation in a somewhat more systematic fashion.  While it is still a work-in-progress and subject to revision, I will begin posting certain portions of these thoughts on Philosophia Omnium once I am reasonably satisfied with them.

The Principia Omnium is an outline of an ontological model in which atheism is necessary (thus turning the traditional arguments for the necessity of a god’s existence on its head).  I am not concerned with the traditional arguments and counter-arguments of classical theism, nor am I interested in any empirical proof, or lack thereof, of any god’s existence.  Atheists long before have refuted classical theism sufficiently, and so these issues do not bear repeating here.  My aim is to examine a non-theistic ontological model and its various ethical implications.

The model is based on certain principles regarding the Whole, Omnia—i.e. the totality of all that is, the universe.  In following these fundamental principles, it will be discovered there can be no room for gods—they are rendered, at best, irrelevant.  It goes without saying that I am coming from an entirely naturalistic worldview—there is no super-natural involved that resides above or beyond the wholly natural.

To clarify my own position, I am not anti-theist per se, but most certainly atheist or non-theist.  There are certain, rare instances where I feel that theists (usually of a mystical bent) express a certain kind of experience in perhaps an imperfect and misleading way.  What I am proposing is a naturalist ontological model, though it may appear, to a degree, to coincide with certain mystical expressions.  Over the past several years recurring philosophical interests have been Heraclitus, Parmenides, Stoic physics, Plotinus, Pseudo-Dionyius, Eckhart, Spinoza, Daoism and Buddhism, among others.  They have certainly provoked many of my own ideas and their influence is sure to be sensed here.

These notes I will post are largely for my own philosophical self-cultivation and self-inquiry.  By attempting to understand our place in the cosmos, and constructing a model to make sense of it, I hope to gain not merely intellectual clarity but existential clarity, to deepen my own realisation of the Whole in my own life.  And, in the course of working out such ideas here, perhaps others may reflect on them too, and realising their own insights.