Lexicon

A - B - C - D - E -F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M  
N - O - P - Q - R - S - T - U - V - W - X - Y - Z

©  Wim van den Dungen
Antwerp, 1997 - 2008.

A

anti-ontological, art, active absence

active absence :

(§ 1) In classical, scholastic & modern Western philosophy (i.e. roughly from Thales of Milete to Wittgenstein & Derrida) texts are understood as representations of reality and/or ideality. In the former case they correspond with an objective state of affairs (events) which can be experienced intersubjectively (facts). In the latter absolute truth is revealed because of the pre-established equation between absolute mind & absolute reality fixating itself intersubjectively in a 'sacred' (i.e. set apart) & 'traditional' language-game of truthful propositions of both objective & subjective realities (together absolute reality). This game is played by the mayority of sign-interpreters, each struggling with it in order to utter -at some point- his or hers theoretical model of ideality & reality.
(§ 2) The situation under (1) can not be denied, although modern & postmodern criticism showed us how to reduce it. Nevertheless, modern logic can not be completely negated. So the radical postmodern approach is a failure 'sui generis'. Absolute negation is nothing more than the reflection of absolute affirmation. The radicalists were motivated by local logics. To combine global thinking with local action was interpreted as a new brand of modernism. The revolt had to be complete. Modern discoveries such as the incompleteness of the consistent, imperative Fregean logics or the presence of turbulence in simple equations (chaostheory) are not given the time to be fully assimilated into a mature philosophical framework.
(§ 3) In this mild & moderate postmodern approach an anti-modernist attitude is critically combined with a deconstruction of the text, leading up to the distinctions between :
(3.1.) the text ;
(3.2.) a deconstruction 'in the margin' of the text.
(§ 4) What is given as a meaningful text claiming to represent reality truthfully is infiltrated by realities deconstructed as the subjective multiple layers of meaning in the text and/or the objective chaotic forces in the universe, implying that -as yet- no truthful representation has been arrived at. The distinction (3) is applied both objectively ŕnd subjectively. The former suggests the permeability of the world, suggesting that the universe we experience is constantly infused by operational forces which seem absent. The latter the multiplicity of the experiencing 'I'. The postmodern authoring mode tries (but fails) to take into account all subjective & objective experiences which can not be put down as text because they are what can not be objectified as part of some representation or model of absolute reality (reality-as-such + ideality-as-such).
(§ 5) 'Active absence' motivates one to think the world as permeable. The mythological, prerational & protorational distinctions between 'visible' (physical, sensorial) and 'invisible' (etherical, pneumatic) are suggestive. Active absence is located at the periphery of the nominal paradigm and transcends it. It is called 'absence' because it is foreign to nominal points of experience which can be verbalised.
(§ 6) As a category 'active absence' implies that whatever theory of reality we conceive of, we are bound to make a mistake. Moreover, no model of reality is absolute for no two subjects of experience share the same co-ordinates. Each has its own variables. The otherness of absolute reality can not be textualised or theoretically modelled. Because it can be a datum of non-verbal experience this absence is called 'active'. The theory, framework (holy books, dogma, tradition) or shrine (temple, church) erected around the raw fact is second-best. The philosopher's goal is to understand the being of the manifestation, infiltration, concretisation, materialisation, etc. of the absent & invisible into the textualised presence of the 'nominal', 'paradigmatic' world-for-us. This 'being' is part of a spectrology to be read as an ontology of 'operational non-existence'. A confrontation with active absence is good to be able to futilize the marvels of reason without negating the latter or to forfeit the necessity of cognitive growth.
(§ 7) In some areas of human activity does active absence come more typically into play : art, spirituality (magical systems, religions, churches, mysticism), parapsychology, astrology, alchemy, homeopathy etc. in others less : physical science, technology or industry.

anti-ontological :

Position taken against any kind of foundational epistemology which identifies object and/or subject of knowledge with real and/or ideal conditions. Both traditional metaphysical realism & metaphysical idealism are rejected because they ground the possibility of knowledge in something outside cognition. Care is taken not to identify the necessary conditions of knowledge with facts which are produced by experiment (testing) & dialogue (argumentation).

art :

(§ 1) Art in sensu lato is the production of beauty. A strict definition : art is a particular rule of harmonisation, or ratio-affective process organising the process of the production of beauty & the interactions between artist & the work of art. So aesthetics is the study of the criteria for the production of beauty.
(§ 2) The simple dyadic logic of harmonisation (or typology of the artistic process & the form, code or style between artist or subject 'S' & his work or object 'O') has following subtypes :
(1) objective art - tragical (only O) ;
(2) subjective art - dramatical (only S) ;
(3) social art - expressive (O larger than S) ;
(4) personal art - impressive (S larger than O) ;
(5) healing art - lyrical (S equivalent to O) ;
(6) revolutionary art - existential (beyond O) ;
(7) psychic art - essential (beyond S) ;
(8) masterly art - comical (beyond O and S).

(§ 3) Beautiful works of art are outstanding states of matter (with exceptional esthetical properties), exemplaric of a rule of harmonisation we can not fully verbalise (cf. Kant). All physical, formal & kinetical properties of a work of art are its sensorial characteristics. All connotative meanings suggested by these sensorial facts are its evocative characteristics. Both have to be exemplaric for beauty to appear. Beyond exemplarity a work of art is called 'sublime'

B

brontosauric

brontosauric :

(§ 1) Traditional logical (Fregean) algorithms, systems, models, etc. seek a complete representation of the world in a set of consistent propositions linked with a limited number of operators behaving according to preorganized truth-calculi. This brontosauric approach implies a closed, consistent & linear (static or periodical) algorithm can -ex hypothesi- be arrived at, allowing for a predictable processing of possible changes within the world.
(§ 2) In the scheme of Descartes, Newton & Laplace a limited set of equations is introduced to cover the movements of beings. Besides being in conflict with many natural processes observed of living systems, which are not without their non-linear, chaotic, elliptic solutions, Fregean logics do not lead to the technological revolutions expected (cf. artificial intelligence & robotics). Intelligence is more than a mature use of the rule of determinism by formal-operatoric cognition (the rational mind).
(§3 ) The parallel mode of processing, which seeks gates to new order (i.e. greater complexity) by observing strange attractors in the indeterministic phase-spaces created by (a) the non-linear idiosyncratic behaviour of complex systems & (b) the multiple interactions with the environment, is (more than expected) also part of human intelligence. This mode is anti-brontosauric. No colossus is sought after, except if inertia can be overcome so that (like in Buckminster-Fuller's tripod) the overall architecture becomes stronger each time new tripods are added to it.
(§ 4) Philosophical deconstruction shows how linear determinism can be understood as the pinnacle of the modern idealisation of the world, which seeks to simplify it rather than to express the intricate complexity of nature. These logics, when politically applied, lead to Auschwitz, the Gulag, the Cultural Revolution, apartheid or the nuclear dream. These logics, when implemented as "the forces of the free market", lead to global geno- and ecocide. To compute the tracks of mindless molecules in a very controlled, closed & strictly linear environment they are fine labo-tools. If presented as the solutions of mankind's problems, these logics become inflated and lead to enormous difficulties, both theoretical (paradoxes remain) as practical (inefficiency & slowness). Luckily mankind is learning what they cost, paying for millions of years for the waste they produce...

C

chaos, colonisation of knowledge, contemplation, continuous creative change, counter-inventional

chaos :

Complex, aperiodic, irregular, not completely predictable, not entirely erratic, a little determinable, non-linear movements of natural & artificial systems, i.e. a phase-stream dependent of small changes in the initial conditions, leading to the exploration of a very large number of dynamical possibilities. Four types of chaos can be distinguished :
(1) protochaos (quasi-periodic with a period > 3) : mostly linear, chaotic term present, quasi-predictable ;
(2) quasi-chaos : all possibilities can be modelled but the correct possibility at a given moment can not be predicted, non-linearity and quasi-periodic with a lot of Feigenbaumian bifurcation's, strange attractors present ;
(3) complete chaos : completely unpredictable attracted movement, Butterfly-effect, non-linear & strange attractor in phase-space, irregular fluctuations, turbulence ;
(4) absolute chaos : no determination, description or attractors possible, completely aperiodic, absolute entropy.

colonisation of knowledge :

Habermas insists on certain symmetrical conditions when truth is sought after through dialogue. If one of the participators is able to influence the others by paying their support, by exerting some power over them or by influencing their ability to speak, the proper conditions are not met and the rational effort can not be truthbearing (for instead of communication strategy prevails). Being an idealist, Habermas identified the conditions of dialogue with the conditions of truth. Nevertheless, the critique of his followers is upright. When the media power & money colonise free study (the foundation for learning & education) is lost. It could also mean that within an organisation the critical and/or possible subversive forces are too weak. This leads to fossilisation (cf.chaostheory). Fossils are interesting but of little interest for the problems of today.

contemplation :

(§ 1) As opposed to action, contemplation can be affective or mental. The former type (the so-called 'union with the heart' - cf. Bernard of Clairvaux) is a transformation of the feeling capacity resulting in universal love, i.e. unconditional sympathy & mercy for all living beings (cf. Tibetan yoga), i.e. a positive state of heart towards all. This state leads to the Eastern 'union with seed' (especially 'ânanda-samâdhi'). The latter type ('union with the mind') is a transformation of the mental, cognitive apparatus, the so-called 'mechanism of mind'. From the original egological (cf. Levinas) or circular position a new focus is reached, called 'Self'. This 'other' is a transcendental focus of consciousness encompassing both object & subject of knowledge, allowing -when contemplation is habitual- for ineffable glimpses of reality-as-such.
(§ 2) An elliptical circumambulation of the conscious field becomes possible, allowing more unconscious material to be processed. In the nominal, circular mind this material is repressed and/or sublimated. It is not transformed and does not lead to the spiritual transfiguration of consciousness. When contemplation is global, Earth finally becomes the Kingdom.
(§ 3) Mental contemplation frees the mind from the slavery of its mechanism and enables the brain to become an efficient & adequate input/output-processor of consciousness. A panoramic view prevails. Permanent biofeedback-loops are established, allowing a free flow of alpha & theta in the waking state with eyes open. Greyness evaporates for the colours & the melodies of life shine in every point of nominal space-time.
(§ 4) In classical yoga contemplation is called 'dhyâna', and is a stage of yogic merging just before samâdhi or union (cf.'unio mystica'). 'Dhyâna' is built on 'dhâranâ', a permanent concentration on one thought-seed (which can be coarse like physical objects or subtle like feelings or thoughts). Object & subject of consciousness are both present but are mediated by totalizing thoughts enabling the yogi to multiply the insights concerning the essence of his original thought-seed. This bridges the natural division of object & subject (while continuous new insights emerge concerning their multiple kaleidoscopic modes of interaction) but is not able to annihilate the division itself. 'Dhyâna' is not an incomplete form of union. Compared to union contemplation is primitive.

continuous creative change :

(§ 1) Physical experience shows how the material operator of the universe is foremost dynamical. Although one may argue whether the entropy characterising matter is really universal or just galactic (cf.Prigogine), some of its kinetical properties have been elucidated by modern physics and a strong consensus exists that movement, process, interaction & evolution are the basic properties of the material operator of the universe. The classical idea of matter as architecture has proven wrong. Although some formal conditions exist (cf. Pauli-exclusion, indetermination, symmetry, etc.), process & interaction constitute material reality.
(§ 2) Modern information-theory enables us to translate some type of process (natural and/or artificial) into a binary code which can be interpreted by intelligent systems and be put into actions resulting in a change according to will. Software is a static architecture of choices. Even in a multi-media-shell with multiple networks of userware, new choices not provided by this architecture will eventually emerge. So a permanent revision of the conservative necessity to maintain a certain set of conditions (rule of tenacity) will be implemented by evolving intelligent systems regularly upgrading their software (rule of renewal).
(§ 3) The field of consciousness is permanently bombarded with inputs from the sense-organs & inner 'organs' (affect, mind, Self). Only during dreamless sleep do we naturally return to the absence of fluctuations. Both waking & dreaming invite man to give meaning to 'his' conscious experiences (or reality-for-me). These cyclical, linear (circular) dynamics (waking - dreaming - waking - etc.) have to be interrupted and transformed by introducing new non-linear (elliptical) patterns of conscious experience (waking - creating - dreaming - waking - etc). Creativity, novelty, inventivity & regeneration are linked with the ability to direct consciousness along the path of a superdynamical harmony between order (linearity) & chaos (non-linearity) and between architecture & process.
(§ 4) To sum up : in the universe creative change occurs in matter, information & consciousness. The deep-structure of the universe is interconnected, ever-changing, multi-dimensional, a totality of material, informational & conscious events. Its operators are the fundamental constituents of a universe in which stability is change.

counter-inventional :

(§ 1) Some characteristics of modern thought run against the natural, spontaneous evolutionary process of living systems. Especially too much emphasis on linearity & determinism may introduce an alien, artificial mechanism in the elliptical, non-linear, chaotic, non-Fregean logics & algorithms operative in the 7 types of systems (amorphous or physical, crystalline, chemical, vegetative, animal, human, spiritual).
(§ 2) However, without the stability generated by successful genetic coding (the products of evolution on Earth) and the linear bioclocks adjusted to minute electro-chemical alterations, no temporal, finite & fragile architecture can be given to the processes of life on Earth and beyond.
(§ 3) Foundationalism & dogmatism, realism & idealism, materialism & mentalism all introduce a monolith or prayer-stone for a sheer belief in some state of affairs. This irrational faith in 'reality-for-us' may be plausible "de facto" in a particular finite local field, but will never last as the final truth about life in a universe continuously engaged in the process of holistic evolution working or steering with matter, information & consciousness (i.e. it will never be justified "de iuris"). Holism indicates that this evolutionary process can never be limited to one operator nor isolated from its constituent parts. The rough total picture is present before its details and in many subtle icons of meaningful data the whole panorama may be found (cf.fractals).
(§ 4) The inventivity found in natural systems can not be represented in a Fregean map. Classical formal logic (as classical thermodynamics) describe the exception, the absence of life. This "nature morte" is interesting in a formal sense but hardly sufficient to grasp life and not to be educated as a general rule (cf.the sectarian belief in the classical "laws of thermodynamics" versus the non-equilibrium view & other theories of energy). When Fregean logic is mastered one discovers that it is nothing more than a modern linear tool comparable with the outdated rulers used by the physicists of the pre-computer era. With these aeroplanes can be built, but not good weather. The fact that non-Fregean logics are not adequately taught at school may be an example of the institutionalisation of incompetence prophesised by Feyerabend more than a decade ago. This complex, multi-layered, multi-systematic, ultra-subtle & extremely difficult to understand reality called "life" should not be reduced to the simplistic binary linearity of childish exceptions disguised as the "sacred truths" of "linear programming" or "non-elliptical differential-calculus" (on which alas most theories belonging to the 'core' of the paradigm were built). If this happens a whole generation looses its inventivity, the ability to think the permanent contemplation of time present. These thoughts, rooted in the now, are not of the temporal, empirical ego. They reflect the activity of the transcendental Self, Kant's "I think".

D

development of mind, dogmatism

development of mind :

(§ 1) In Piaget's theory of intellectual development two general principles of functioning (affecting cognitive abilities) are postulated : organisation & adaptation. The former implies the tendency common to all forms of life to integrate structures (physical & psychological) into higher-order systems. The latter (to be divided in assimilation & accommodation) shows how the individual not only modifies cognitive structures in reaction to demands (external) but also uses his structures to incorporate elements of the environment (internal). Organisms tend toward equilibrium with the environment. Centration, decentration (crisis) & re-equilibration are the fundamental processes defining the differentiation of cognitive texture.
(§ 2) Mental operators are formed as a result of the interiorization of this process of cognitive evolution. An original centration around a primal sense of identity is shaped. After prolonged exposure to new types of action -challenging the established original centration and its equilibrium- a crisis ensues and decentration results. This may lead to a higher-order system as a result of auto-regulation. Re-equilibration occurs and a higher-order equilibrium is found. In this way several strands, levels, layers or planes of cognitive texture unfold.
(§ 3) The process can be analysed as follows :
(3.1.) repeated confrontation with a new kind of action ;
(3.2.) action-reflection or the interiorization of this action by means of semiotic factors ; this is the first level of permanency or pre-concepts having no decontextualized use ;
(3.3.) anticipation & retro-action using the pre-concepts leads to a permanent cognitive (mental) operator and stable concepts valid insofar as they symbolise the original action without reference to context ;
(3.4.) final level of permanency or formal concepts, valid independent of original action and context.
(§ 4) Each mental operator (consciousness) identifies (symbolises) actions in sets, strands, layers of informational & material activity. In this way Piaget defined four layers of growth :
(4.1.) sensori-motoric, between birth and 2 years of age ;
(4.2.) pre-operational, between 2 and 6 ;
(4.3.) concrete operatoric, between 7 and 10 ;
(4.4.) formal-operatoric, between 10 & 13.
(§ 5) Taking into account the findings of neofreudian theory, Kohlberg's research on moral development & theories on post-formal cognitive growth (like Maslow's), yields following sequence of cognitive growth :
(5.1.) pre-natal, foetal, archaic consciousness between 0 & 9 months ;
(5.2.) pre-formal consciousness, between birth & 10 :
* libidinal (birth - 2) : oral (birth - 18 months), anal (18 months - 2), pre-moral, safety-needs ;
* tribal (2 - 6) : period of Oedipal crisis, pre-moral ;
* imitative (7 - 10) : a period of latency, legalism (Kohlberg phase 1) and belongingness-needs ;
(5.3.) formal consciousness, between 10 & 13 : puberty, hedonism (Kohlberg phase 2), self-esteem-needs ;
(5.4.) socio-formal consciousness, between 14 & 24 : fitting into society, sociologism (Kohlberg phase 3 : 14 - 19), authoritarism (Kohlberg phase 4 : 19 - 24) and self-esteem-needs ;
(5.5.) individualising consciousness, between 24 & 29 : utilitarism (Kohlberg phase 5) and selfactualization-needs ;
(5.6.) individualised consciousness, between 29 - ? : universalism (Kohlberg phase 6), selfactualization-needs.

dogmatism :

(§ 1) Kant identified both dogmatism & scepticism as expressions of pre-critical thought. Dogmatism affirms a proposition for which no justification can be articulated. Scepticism denies a proposition because methodological doubt is stressed or because one is sure to possess truth (scepticism as a form of hidden dogmatism). The critical position delays judgement and remains neutral. As the boundaries of the mind are known, criticism will distinguish between propositions that can be tested & verbalised (i.e. scientific theories) and those that can only be verbalised & arguable (i.e. speculative, metaphysical theories). In the late 20th century the role played by metaphysics is not eliminated or reduced (cf. Popper, Lakatos, Feyerabend). Science & metaphysics differ but complement each other.
(§ 2) Dogmatism can be related to metaphysical realism or idealism. In the former case the existence of a "real world" outside (and without) the subject is accepted. In the latter case, by eclipsing the object, one claims to speak the "ideal language", i.e. a true discourse which is a one-to-one representation (projection) of the "world". Both beliefs are dogmatic, for the boundaries of knowledge are such that the "real world" is always co-created by subjective theories and no factual language is possible without reference to given, extra-linguistic reality-as-such.
(§ 3) The dogmatism of modernism is related to :
(3.1.) The dogma of a linear, mathematical representation of the "nature morte" of physical process as a closed "black box" (cf. Carnot, Boltzman & classical thermodynamics).
(3.2.) The dogma of the reduction of the (inter)subjective conditions of reality to objective, material parameters of action. The Cartesian dualism being replaced by material monism & logical positivism.
(3.3.) Its belief in the determinism of its linear representations, striving for completeness, consistency & predictability. Small causes call for small effects. The elliptical, non-linear part of the equations are left unsolved. Chaos is not perceived and so life grossly misunderstood.
(3.4.) Its belief in an omnipotent technology & an unending material growth.

F

facts, false door, final truth, foundational regression, free study

facts :

(§ 1) That which we -on the basis experience & dialogue- suppose to really render reality-as-such. Facts are hybrids.
(§ 2) They partly transcend theory because they hold the letters of belief, so do we believe, of reality-as-such. Because in a give context experience learns us a given fact, and this repeatedly, we (a finite set of sign-interpreters), after a lot of dialogue and if necessary argumentation & reobservation, accept this given fact. However, because facts do not entirely transcend theory but are theory-laden, this state of affairs can not be considered as absolute, definitive, or unalterable in the future (which remains open).
(§ 3) Facts are partly immanent because no observation or dialogue is possible without theoretical connotations which are not caused by the sense-organs. So a fortiori no two observations are identical and independent of cultural, local & idiosyncratic, i.e. contextual features linked with a limited segment of space-time. A set of propositions is accepted and considered by a limited set of sign-interpreters to be called "true" not because they can be sure that this "truth" is final (i.e. identical with a complete articulation of reality-as-such), but because these propositions contain facts concerning this-and-that (series of) observations we settled on by common consent. This consensus is not a "consensus omnium" and can never be one, for all possible sign-interpreters can not be present all at once. So when we read the letters of belief the facts present to us, we decide about their truth-value as a function of the result of an intersubjective harmonisation of individual opinions about experimental results. So the truth of the rational mind is always a relative truth, unfinished & growing.
(§ 4) Because of this subjectivity, we can allow other opinions, but it refutes the thesis that facts are the perfect mirrors of reality-as-such. However, facts are not exclusively the outcome of intersubjective mental operations (i.e. only a product of language-games). This idealism is as untenable as its anti-pode, realism. Facts are produced by reality-as-such (so do we believe) and language. If facts are made to transcend theory completely, metaphysical realism is implied. In the other case, metaphysical idealism ensues.

false door :

(§ 1) In some tombs of Ancient Egypt a false door was present (cf. Ancient Kingdom) . Through it the spiritual man ("ka", "ba" etc.) was believed to return to the tomb to visit the mummy of his physical body. This false door linked the physical world of the dead body with the world of the living dead, i.e. those existing with the resurrected Osiris. So visible & invisible are linked to the advantage of the invisible.
(§ 2) Systems (discourses, texts, algorithms, theories, paradigmata, etc.) are inevitable. No system is always complete, consistent & deterministic. In systems errors, anomalies, paradoxes, incompleteness & chaos do occur. As soon as a system claims to be complete, consistent & deterministic it needs a 'false door' to cover up were it eventually will break down.
(§ 3) In texts "false doors" are significant ideas which are eternalised. They are seemingly made to transcend the level of the text. Because no text is complete, the door is called "false". Because these ideas make consciousness move from the level of text to another, text-transcendent signification, it is called "a door".
(§ 4) The sum of all texts constitutes the magister of logocentric presence of man on Earth. All transcendent significators hidden in these texts point to the intrusion of absence in presence. The false doors link presence & absence to the advantage of absence.

final truth :

(§ 1) Western philosophy tends to eternalise truth (as a footnote to the philosophy of Plato ? - cf. Whitehead). A limited subjective set of propositions is believed to be a genuine objective representation of all realities (existence). Final truth is arrived at by equating the operations of the mind with reality-as-such (for "legis cogitandi sunt leges essendi"). Both ancient & scholastic epistemology include this idealistic element. In Platonic (and neo-platonic) schemes it is ontological (cf. the world of "ideas"), whereas Aristotelians (and later Averroists) tend to idealise the operations of the "active intellect", i.e. they epistemologise metaphysical idealism. Medieval nominalism (not unlike ancient sophism) is a sceptic outcome of too much stress on extra-temporalism. The renaissance introduced bricoleurs who were great inventors. Because of the emphasis on the practical individual, a definite break with scholasticism was inevitable. Later, identical tensions develop between rationalism (Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza) and empiricism (Locke, Berkeley, Hume). Cartesians accept what Kant later called "intellectual perception" ("idea clara et distincta", monadic apperception, intuitional knowledge). This pre-critical intuition is able to verbalise the "final truth" about the order of things. Metaphysical "knowledge" is possible & more needed than in the confused, mixed & diverse empirical data received from unprecise sense-organs. Empirism rejects the presence of an eternal true idea and focuses on the mechanisms of the mind, fed by sensorial inputs ("nihil est in intellectu quod non fuerit in sensu"). Hume rejects all forms of eternalism and so he is unable to explain why the mind knows how to compare and define a common measure between two spatio-temporally separated sensorial experiences, leading again to scepticism (cf.Gorgias).
(§ 2) Kant rejected intuitional knowledge on the grounds that the mechanism of the mind ("Verstand") is not involved with the activity of reason ("Vernunft"). Reason unifies the categories of the mind by means of universal ideas (like world, soul, God) & guarantees the growth of knowledge. These ideas do not constitute the order of things but the order of mind. It is the order of mind which constitutes the order of things. The activity of (transcendental) reason has to be distinguished from the activity of the (empirical) mind. This implies that no categorial knowledge can be gathered by using reason.
(§ 3) Kant correctly distinguished between mind & reason but he underestimated the abilities of reason when under the influence of intellectual perception. Schelling & Hegel are romantic expressions of the creative power of reason. Husserl its scientific elucidation. In a critical transcendent metaphysics the distinction between verbal knowledge & non-verbal, unknowing insight or "gnosis" is used to postmodernise the "classical" critical position. 
This can be summarised as follows :
(3.1.) In human cognition emotion, mind, reason & intellect prevail ;
(3.2.) The mechanisms of mind develop new mental operators under pressure of action & motion and emotion is the first step of mental interiorization (cf.Piaget) or emotion = meta-action, leading to mind = meta-emotion ;
(3.3.) Reason is meta-mind unifying & expanding mind ;
(3.4.) The unification of mind by reason implies a transcendental Self, transcending the spatio-temporality of the mind ;
(3.5.) The rational mind is the ideal of modernism, rejecting the intellectual perception of the ideas of the transcendental Self of consciousness leading to "intellectual reason", the ideal of a free science harmonising science of fact and metaphysics of invention ;
(3.5.) we speculate that the intellectual perception of the transcendental Self-ideas finally leads to a non-verbal, unknowing insight into reality-as-such (cf. Husserl's "Wesenschau", Patańjali's "prajńâ") which is the authentic, ineffable enlightenment of reason by the intellect ;
(3.6.) these gnostic (mystic) insights have a profound influence on human actions, affects & cognition's ;
(3.7.) so final truth can be experienced but not articulated, it is ineffable.

foundational regression :

(§ 1) In order to back proposition A one needs A'. A' is backed by A", and A(n) by A(n+1). Classical models try to stop this infinite regression for it destroys the possibility of building knowledge on a definitive, final & absolute rockbottom (so that it is the verbalisation of final truth). They postulate a foundational principle which justifies the end of the regression and acts as a source of true, valid knowledge :
(1.1.) ontological intuitionism : A(x) is true because it is a 'clear & distinct' idea ;
(1.2.) rationalism : A(x) is true because it fits in the ideal order of things ;
(1.3.) empiricism : A(x) is true because it is a sense-datum ;
(1.4.) dogmatic falsificationism : A(x) is true because it can but is not refuted.
(§ 2) These models assume a clear frontier between theoretical & observational terms. Because of the theory-ladenness of observations this assumption can not be maintained. They stop the regression in a dogmatic way. Russell wrote : "The hardest of hard data are of two sorts : the particular facts of sense, and the general truths of logic. (...) Real doubt, in these two cases, would, I think, be pathological." (Russell, B. : Our Knowledge of the External World, New York, 1950, p.6). This is suggestive of the attitude taken.
(§ 3) This regression can not be eliminated as long as knowledge is justified in a foundational way. The abysmal foundation of knowledge lies within knowledge itself. This shows how logic & epistemology are normative disciplines, elucidating (digging up) the rules cognition is and has always been using. One cannot repudiate them because the very attempt to do so necessarily commits one to an affirmation of them. The rejection is logically impossible.

free study :

(§ 1) Multatuli wrote : "He who studies Nature without prejudice, without a tailored, anticipated result, with the fixed will to find the truth while studying in a free way, truly he will not drift !"
(§ 2) To study in a free way, with an open mind allowing for all possibilities, is incompatible with sceptics & dogmatics. The former are too influenced by their "thirst for annihilation" while the latter take the opposite position and never go beyond the house next door. Dogmatism accepts the foundational strategy and fixates knowledge. It is secure. Scepticism answers : "We do not know !" and disallows too much certainty. It is insecure.
(§ 3) Free study is the privilege or advantage of the postmodern luxury of free space-time. The postmodern aristocrat has no land, titles or a lot of money. Instead s/he is free to investigate with an open, critical mind unswayed by irrationalism, truly independent but genuinely metaphysical and intellectual. More and more the postmodern bricoleur gets this advantage. Independent and providing for his (her) own resources invested in the pursuit of free study, this (wo)man-of-many-talents comes more near to the ideal of an authentic intellectual life than most academics forced to read the papers of their many students instead of doing multi-disciplinary research.

I

idealism, intellect, irrationalism

idealism :

(§ 1) Idealism is a metaphysics of the subject of experience. Ideas about ourselves, others, the world & the absolute are considered to be primordial to understand freedom. Absolute idealism (Hegel) will completely incorporate the object of experience in the subject. The tension between our minds & reality vanishes in an ideal subject.
(§ 2) In a critical epistemology (Kant) the activities of the mind are organised by reason, centred in an ideal, transcendental Self, the seat of the ideas, enabling the unity & the growth of the factual knowledge gathered by the mind through sensorial synthesis (of experiments & dialogues with other subjects). The rational mind implies a critical form of (relative) methodological idealism.
(§ 3) Because the supposed final enlightenment of reason by the intellect is direct & non-verbal, no ideas are at work to constitute knowledge. So in our version of a critical epistemology Kant's distinction between knowledge constituted by sensorial synthesis and the unification of the mind by the ideas of reason is maintained. Intellectual insight can not produce knowledge. On the other hand, Kant's rejection of intellectual perception is refuted on the basis of a different understanding of the role played by intuition.

intellect :

(§ 1) According to Thomas of Aquinas, metaphysics has its own mode of knowledge, ascribed to what he called the "intellectus". This mode captures one single truth, and implies a direct, immediate intake of knowledge which differs from the mediate ways to gather it. So "ratio" (related to science) and "intellect" are divided. Metaphysics offers this unique synthetical, intellectual insight regarding being-as-such. Thomas (like Kant) denied man the "terminus" of reason. A direct knowledge of what lies outside the "ratio" is impossible. It was Nicolas of Cusa who used the expression "intuitio intellectualis" to define the knowledge of an evident truth.
(§ 2) The suggested alternative ? Accepting that intellectual unknowing insight is possible but irrelevant to the process of the production of facts. Intuition reinterpreted ? Intellectual activity orders reason like reason orders mind and mind orders the sensorial synthesis. The unity of reason leads to the contemplating intellect. The growth of the variety of the knowledge of the mind leads factual consciousness to the unity of reason.
(§ 3) To become conscious of the transcendental Self, the empirical ego should be bracketed. The "natural" context of action, the emotional life & the mentals connected with the ego are constructions with a limited and fragmented reality-for-me. They should be set apart for they do not endure. During dreams new conditions are operational. In dreamless sleep all identified consciousness or subjectivity seems annihilated. In the waking state different turbulence may create episodes of lowered consciousness, while physical conditions may create unease & pain. The empirical ego is unstable, unpredictable & differential. As soon as we try to explain consciousness we are forced to think a transcendental Self which accompanies all possible states of the empirical ego. Reason pictures this "I" as formal & empty, waiting for "the flash of insight" to be poured into the pure Grail. It can do and should do nothing more.
(§ 4) Two levels of transcendental, intellectual activity :
(4.1.) the contemplative activity of the ideas of the transcendental Self ;
(4.2.) the monadic activity of the absolute I or root-consciousness.
(§ 5) Two types of rationality :
(5.1.) rational mind : unable to contemplate the transcendental Self and preoccupied with the growth of the factual knowledge gathered by the mind through sensorial synthesis.
(5.2.) intellectual reason : integrated at both sides, i.e. organising the rational mind towards unity and serving the purpose of the expression of a Self-task offered to the universal life of the absolute I.
(§ 6) The impact of the intellect (of contemplation) on reason is limited because the transcendental ideas do nothing more than regulate the processes of the mind so that more objective knowledge may be gathered. They do not constitute factual knowledge (i.e. they never constitute reality-for-us). Nor are these ideas representations of the true order of things (as traditional ontology supposed). The Self-ideas thirst for manifestation and succeed through intellectual flashes of insight to inspire, initiate & engage new, creative & just activity of reason. Without these ideas reason would not be able to unify the heterogeneity of the mind's objective knowledge (facts).

irrationalism :

(§ 1) Irrationalism involves the refutation of reason, the denial of the possibility of a rational order of events and/or the rejection of man's ability to organize his actions, emotions & thoughts in accord with reason. This type of absolute irrationalism, trying to refute rationalism, is compatible with nihilism, scepticism, sophism & radical postmodern currents of thought.
(§ 2) Logically, a proposition is irrational when simple formal features are lacking in a discourse. In particular consistency, critical format, completeness & coherence should be noted. Distinguish between irrational episodes & modes of thought on the one side and structural irrationality on the other.
(§ 3) Because metaphysical expressions are never propositions (are not factual) they can only be justified by means of dialogue & argumentation (not through experiment). An irrational metaphysics is besides untestable, untenable (not arguable).
(§ 6) In general, "ante-rationality" can be characterized by studying the features of mythical, pre-rational and proto-rational thought (corresponding with Piaget's sensori-motoric, pre-operational and concrete operational stages of cognitive growth). Irrationality is then the foundation of ante-rationality, namely mythical thought.

M

metaphysics

metaphysics :

(§ 1) Speculative, arguable & universalising statements about being per se which can never be put to the test but which (a) co-constitute the definition of "experimentation" tenaciously defended by the majority of the so-called community of "scientific" sign-interpreters and (b) is at least a heuristic device enlarging the horizon of possible facts (or art of discovery).
(§ 2) In his old age Kant was finally occupied with his dream, a critical metaphysics which would -before any speculation- consider the limitations of human cognition first. The internal framework of the subject being universal & necessary, Kant tried to associate his metaphysical speculations with it. The notion of a possible immanent metaphysics is interesting.
(§ 3) Carnap, in his article "Empiricism, semantics and ontology" (1950), argues that the platonic realism which states that abstract entities may have an existence outside their linguistic frameworks (an absolute existence) should be rejected. On the other hand, it is acceptable to speak about abstract objects which are defined by the rules of these frameworks. "Existence", "reality", "to be real" and "to recognise something as a real thing" should never be used outside the linguistic framework in which they appear. So this framework defines the possible "designata". According to Carnap it is only possible to ask questions which are internal, meaning that their answers are given by means of the rules of the given framework. External questions, focusing on (a) the system of entities "as a whole" and (b) the existence of these entities without a linguistic framework are considered as "pseudo-questions", "quasi-cognitive" or "quasi-theoretical". It is possible to show that this position is determined by Carnap's pragmatical choice to construe artificial languages which could solve some of the problems of the empirical and/or mathematical sciences. He was not interested in the "final" questions of philosophy. Moreover, how is it possible to identify a linguistic framework ? How did these rules defining reality come into existence ? And more important, how do they receive their limiting power ? These are open questions in the model proposed by Carnap.
(§ 4) It is clear that Carnap suggested (without defining it) the existence of an immanent metaphysics, construed by the rules of the linguistic framework of the language-users. When we ask "What is being ?", we are unable to step outside all possible linguistic frameworks, implying that no absolute answer exists if no universal linguistic framework can be discovered (it can never be defined from the outside, but must be found from within, i.e. it is discovered or recovered by studying the practice of speculative thought around the globe). The rules of this framework will determine how "being", "the real" & the "unreal" are understood. But clearly, a platonic definition "sub specie aeternitatis" or a priori is impossible. This was the error of all classical metaphysical models (as Kant showed), whereas the critical model relied too much on the universal & necessary characteristics of the categorial scheme. But Kant & Carnap showed us the way. Let us ask whether a universal & necessary empirico-linguistic framework can be broadly sketched ?
(§ 5) A linguistic framework which is directly derived from the structure of the universal field of observation will format the proposed immanent metaphysics used in the Equiaeon-project. This means that the following proposition is accepted : "All empirical statements (the observation of objects by the sense-organs) are always & everywhere necessarily framed by the local sphere of observation, globally defined by a horizontal plane with four cardinal points of reference (East, South, West, North) and a vertical plane with two points of reference (Nadir, Zenith)." Although each observation is unique (using a exclusive local sphere), its constituents are universal (defining the global sphere). If each local sphere is linked with a particular "reality-for-me", the global sphere is related to the planetary "reality-for-us". The horizontal plane is associated with the diversity of static models of beings, the way they interconnect (although divergent) and their respective "horizon" or conceptual limitation, whereas the vertical plane is used to construe the evolutionary process in which each being is involved (moving from origin -Nadir- to final end -Zenith-) implying the dynamical divergence of each system's evolutionary phase-space.
(§ 6) Four static cardinal approaches to (orientations of) the diversity of being (front, back, right & left) and two evolutionary points of reference concerning the convergence of being (origin/goal) make up the octagonal categorial scheme of our immanent metaphysics.

horizontal :

vertical :

(§ 7) A global view on being (reality-for-us on being-as-such) may arise out of this combination of the historical, multi- & pluricultural memory-theatre of human consciousness (diversity under unity) and the rise of freedom (being the result of the -vertical- evolutionary process of the cosmos). This is a historical view, relative to the existence of the known human civilisations on this planet. Its conclusions regarding "being" are immanent (i.e. show us something about "being-for-us"), but they do transcend (both in time & space) the local spheres of reference. It is not a transcendent metaphysics* nor an absolute insight* into being-as-such. It is the apex of understanding of the global ethics of planetary participationism and the speculative core of the theory on the sustainable harmonisation of human development and basic natural & cultural needs. Its present absence shows what our cultures in the XXth century lacked most.
(§ 8) The apex of metaphysics transcends* this global sphere or pluri-linguistic framework. This involves a direct but unknowing insight* which can not be verbalised but which shows in the things a subject does and/or leaves behind (ethics). Transcendent metaphysics* is only possible if the consequences of the universal mystical experience are acknowledged. This can only be wholeheartedly done when this experience has been fully lived through. So the difference between transcendent metaphysics* and mystical theology is small. The former studies the possibilities of an intellectual perception beyond all possible linguistic frames*, whereas the latter is concerned with the possible relationships with the object of all mystical experience, God*.

O

ontology, ontological illusion

ontology :

(§ 1) Invented in the 17th century, "ontology" and "metaphysics" were synonymous. In the philosophy of Wolff (1679 - 1754), who (a) elaborated the system which was to reform the German universities (in the 18th century), (b) popularised Leibniz and (c) forged the link between the latter & Kant, "metaphysica generalis" or "ontologia" was distinguished from "metaphysica specialis". This was further divided in "cosmologia", "psychologia" & "theologia naturalis". Later, these categories were used by Kant. Ontology was a theory on being in general and had to provide the root-concepts regarding universal being necessary to systematically relate the specialisation's. In the Leibniz-Wolff synthesis the "adequatio" between mind & reality was accepted and the factual status of metaphysics acknowledged.
(§ 2) Nearly all philosophical answers before Kant may be called "pre-critical". The Greek word "krinoo" means "to divide, to rule". Before engaging in metaphysical speculations, one should know the capacities of the cognitive apparatus (the subject of knowledge). A border, division or distinction should be maintained between those propositions backed by a valid use of the possible categories of the mind and those aiming to convey "knowledge" which falls outside the possibilities of the mind. The sensorial system provides a synthesis the categories of mind process under the regulative guidance of the ideas of reason. In no way is object-knowledge constituted by the ideas. The non-factual status of metaphysics is acknowledged. These natural incapacities of the mind are the reason why (neo-)Kantian criticism can never be superseded. As soon as this is accepted, ontology receives a "double coding". Besides being a possible theory on being, it signals man's ability to cover up the inborn limitations of his mind by brontosauric theories on existence. Ontology in that sense is the screen upon which the tragi-comical illusions of realism & idealism are projected and made to play.
(§ 3) Relative ontology can be made part of an immanent metaphysics which does not move beyond the natural capacities of mind & reason. The syntax of this metaphysics, sought after by Kant in his Opus Postumum, is in my view identical with the necessary octagonal structure of the field of observation : front, right, back, left (horizontal) and top, bottom (vertical). This structure is global (operates for all possible places on Earth) & necessary (for all possible observers). To this absolute syntax a relative meaningful language (or semantics) is added. These languages are the many ontologies, representing the relative (horizontal) positions of all possible answers to the question : "What is being ?"

ontological illusion :

(§ 1) Technical term invented by Kant to denote the impact of the refuted constitutive use of the ideas of reason. God, the world or the soul were Kant's Self-ideas organising (his) mind. They do not produce objective knowledge. If this is rejected (as is not the case in all traditional metaphysical theories of knowledge) reason is under the sway of a powerful illusion, namely the identification of the ideas of reason with an objective state of events. An optical illusion does not vanish as soon as one understands why it only seems to exist. Likewise, an ontological illusion will not disappear after criticism has discovered it. We can make sure not to be deceived again though, but we can not annihilate the deception.
(§ 2) Neo-Kantianism has discovered the importance of the ideas of "idealism" and "realism", constituting an "essential tension" (cf.Kuhn). An ideal subject is presupposed to explain how knowledge, growth of knowledge & its unity are possible as soon as the truth of a proposition is defined exclusively as a function of dialogue, argumentation & intersubjective consensus. This intrusion of a metaphysics of the "ideal" to explain knowledge (cf.Habermas theory of truth) is to be eradicated. As soon as the truth of a proposition is exclusively defined as a function of observation, experiment & correspondence with reality-as-such ; an real, objective world is presupposed to explain how knowledge, growth of knowledge & its unity are possible. A metaphysics of the "real" should not be invoked to explain the fact of knowledge (cf.Popper's theory of truth). In reason both ideas converge and make up what Kant called a "focus imaginarius". This focus however, is nothing less than the ineffable light of the intellect guiding reason in its effort to unify the growing activities of the mind.
(§ 3) A metaphysical system* aware of the critical limitations of mind & reason tries to develop along "immanent" metaphysical themes aiming at a global perspective on being-for-us (i.e. an immanent metaphysical research programme). This immanent metaphysics (of reason) has asymptotic gateways to an ineffable transcendent intuition* (of the intellect), revealing the universal meaning of being-as-such (i.e. a transcendent metaphysics*).

P

presence

presence :

(§ 1) Both Nietzsche, Heidegger & Whitehead have tried to identify Western philosophy as a whole with Platonism. Apollinism, the conception of truth as revealed (unhidden) & substantialism come under attack. Derrida speaks of a philosophy of "presence" and adds "logocentrism", implying that the written word refers to a reality outside the text (theory, paradigm, ideology, etc.). What happens when this "belief" is discovered and bracketed ? Derrida does not want to reverse (Nietzsche) or destroy (Heidegger) metaphysics. He wants to deconstruct this metaphysics of presence (as logocentrism) by considering that which is not present. He criticises the definitions of identity, formulated by Russell :
(a) what is, is (identity) ;
(b) nothing can be and not-be at the same time (contradiction) ;
(c) everything exists or exists not (excluded third).
(§ 2) These definitions point to a deeper metaphysical conviction, namely that reality(-as-such) is without contradictions, identical with itself, homogeneous, without mediation and devoid of complexity, mediation, difference, impurity and heterogeneity. A system of dualities is erected upon these grounds : sensuous versus rational ; ideal versus real ; internal versus external ; truth versus fiction ; nature versus culture ; writing versus talking ; activity versus passivity, etc ...
(§ 3) Both relativity, quantum & chaos articulate a physical paradigm which defies the institutionalised absolute dualism of modern thought. Existence can not be explained in terms of eternal ideas, a one-to-one relationship between mind & reality or an "ousiology" unable to think change. Time is able to influence matter and space-time is relative. The foundation of matter is more like a continuum of interacting fields than a Newtonian "planetary" system of "disjecta membra". Movements in living systems are better explained when complex, non-linear, chaotic behaviour (i.e. strong dependence on initial conditions) is analysed and anticipated (via the strange attractors). The eventfulness, the continuous change & the creativity of being are interesting speculative areas for future metaphysical investigations.
(§ 4) Heidegger's "alętheia", or unconcealment, implies "presence", for the power that manifests itself stands in unconcealment, it shows itself and as such comes to stand. By stressing that truth is "a-lętheia", or un-concealment, a double coding surfaces : truth is both presence (unconcealment) & absence (concealment). Because we know that logocentrism is presence we should ask : "How disconnect words from their references ?". This mental operation may be compared with Husserl's bracketing of the natural state of consciousness. These philosophers try to convey the idea that the totality of being is beyond the set of existentials we have conditioned ourselves with. What is present is but a fragment of what is absent (cf.Freud who claimed that the conscious is the top of the iceberg).

R

realism, reality-as-such, reason

realism :

(§ 1) Realism is a metaphysics of the object of experience. So-called "real" objects & their "external" laws are considered to be primordial to understand continuity. Absolute or dialectical realism (Marx) completely incorporates the subject of experience into the object. The tension between our minds and reality vanishes in the "real" thing, state or society.
(§ 2) Because our theories, languages & other subjectivity's are not enough to understand how knowledge & its growth are possible, we accept that facts (besides explained by our own theories) do reveal reality-as-such. The reasoned mind implies a critical form of (relative) methodological realism.
(§ 3) Although "real" data are supposed to reach the mind's eye, no factual experience is exclusively caused by these so-called "hard" sensorial synthesis. The theory-ladenness of observation can only make epistemology stress the importance of the irreducible dyad when dealing with the operations of the mind. The regulation of a dual mind by a unifying reason is impossible without a level beyond reason.

reality-as-such :

(§ 1) This reality -understood to be independent of ourselves- has to be postulated as knowable without us ever being able to encompass it with mind or reason, implying that facts have always to be thought off as open to further corrections.
(§ 2) Reality-as-such is the object of a transcendent metaphysics*, moving beyond the limits imposed upon our mind & reason. Science is not equipped to enter this realm of things-as-such. A valid immanent metaphysics does not deal with reality-as-such. A transcendent metaphysics* implies a non-verbal & unknowing intuitive insight* into the order of reality-as-such & beyond (i.e. absolute reality, hyper-being, Divinity). Such a transcendent metaphysics* is neither objective or subjective but encompasses both. In this way it is a "false door" one may use to perceive the light of the intellect pouring into reality-for-me (& us). But it has no facts to deliver. So is not a science. Indirectly however the intellect may inspire reason, the seat of freedom. The more habitual contemplative (intellectual) life becomes, the more reason is inspired to share its plenty.
(§ 3) Mind nor reason are necessary and sufficient cause. Only the intellect is beyond mind & reason. Even after "intellectual" contemplation (causing true freedom) has become habitual no direct relationship between this insight* and mental processes are postulated. Kant anticipated that if he allowed intellectual perception traditional, antinomic metaphysics could not be kept out. So he made no transcendental investigations beyond the formal plane. If he would have, the dynamics of the transcendental plane would have been obvious to him and the historicity of the transcendental Selves would have allowed him to move further and contemplate (like Husserl). Instead Kant's idea of the transcendental plane is static & eternalising.
(§ 4) Reason is not only the tribunal organising the mind but also the highpriest of the sanctuary of continuous intellectual creativity and co-existence with the eventfulness of the cosmos. If this latter service atrophies humanity participates less in the universal negentropy of the cosmos understood as the eventful process of consciousness, information & matter.

reason :

(§ 1) Reason is a higher faculty of cognition. Before Kant reason was understood to be the seat of objective knowledge (cf. the theory on the "active intellect"). In traditional metaphysics this meant the ideation of notions like "world", "soul" & "God". The problem was that the traditional metaphysical systems generated contradictory opinions. Although a given system could be defended when accepting its axioms, its views on reality contradicted those of systems using other axioms. This was scandalous and showed the irrationality of traditional metaphysical models & their ontology. Kant (strongly impressed by Newton & Hume and trying to give philosophy a firm & solid foundation free of these antinomies) showed that objective knowledge (facts) are not produced or constituted by reason. The sensorial synthesis is categorically processed by the mind resulting in factual object-knowledge. Without categories no facts. Without sense-organs no facts. So Kant revolutionised philosophy by showed the importance of a philosophy erected upon a clear & consistent epistemological prolegomena, i.e. a necessary preparation before any real theoretical work could start. This led to a new "critical" criterion : if any work on philosophy recuperates pre-critical standards of inquiry it should be discarded as outdated.
(§ 2) Even if reason has been critically aroused not to be deluded by ontological illusion, so that the ideas of reason are not seen as ontological hypostases but regulative principles holding a hypothetical (not an apodictical) claim, reason is still involved with a double conflictual interest ("widerstreitendes Interesse"). On the one hand reason seeks unity in the variety of natural phenomena (the multiple is reduced to a type). On the other hand reason seeks heterogeneity (the unique, not repeatable & singular) in order to guarantee the growth of knowledge. The law of variety and the law of types have not been reconciled by Kant because he did not accept a faculty of cognition higher than reason.
(§ 3) If the organisation of the mind may be characterised as "dual", the overall logic behind reason, although layered, is "monadic". For Kant, variety & unity are active on the same level (of reason). This crippled reason and introduced an insane, schizoid fluctuation between variety & unity. Kant projected the dualism of the mind on reason. His treatment of the transcendental Self was also incomplete. So further criticism allows one to distinguish between (a) a mind working with & tending towards dualism (variety) and (b) reason working with dualism but tending towards unity under the influence of the intellect (unity). The law of types is more fundamental to reason than the law of variety, which is fundamental to mind. By working with the former, reason invokes the intellect, which Kant overlooked or repressed.
(§ 4) So the following flow-chart of human cognition ensues :
(a) sensorial synthesis : multiple data are perceived & offered as a "Gestalt" to the mind ;
(b) mind : this "Gestalt" is categorised in dualistic terms to allow object-knowledge to appear ;
(c) reason : these dual operations of the mind are regulated by the ideas of reason (realism versus idealism) triggering the emergence of a type (or unification-model of reason) subsuming the variety of object-knowledge produced by the mind and leading to the inner enlightenment by the intellect ;
(d) intellect : the monadic operations of reason are enlightened by the intellectual perception of the ideas of the transcendental Self, intuitional stepping-stone to the non-verbal, unknowing, ineffable insight of the absolute I into the reality-as-such of the models of reason.

S

sense of being

sense of being :

(§ 1) The empirical ego (related to the mind) is a focus of relative permanence. In waking & dreaming no continuous state of consciousness is present. Fluctuations & gaps occur in a spatiotemporal frame, allowing for the distinction between past & future (states). The sense of existence drawn from this perspective is tragical. The moment before we fall asleep the ego vanishes. In dreamless sleep it is gone. Some compare this with our still inevitable physical death.
(§ 2) The moment of awakening (life's sunset) is a crucial metaphor to indicate the rebirth of the conscious life of the empirical ego. This rebirth is not possible without another conscious focus. This is one of absolute permanence, i.e. the transcendental Self. Discover the ideas of this Self & contemplate them. This reveals another sense of existence drawn from a panoramic perspective contaminating the tragical context in a comical way. The contemplation of the ideas of the transcendental Self leads to an elliptical consciousness away from the egology & circularity of the ego-mind-complex. The permanence of the transcendental Self is called "relative" from the perspective of the absolute I.
(§ 3) A philosophy which does not suggest a sense of being discovered in the timeless present is defunct.

initiated : 1997 - last update : 25 XI 2005 - version n°3

Return to the Top