http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/04/k2/img/02-chinese-side-k2-670.jpg Climbers taking on "K2" from the Chinese side. Slow and hard going. # Abstract Discovering this metaphysical system based on the *Principle of Metaphysical Induction* (henceforth, “PMI”) has been one of the joys of my life: it has uncluttered much useless and confusing complexity from my vision of the world. Also, it has made it a much lovelier and meaningful place (compared to the fragmented realities that contemporary science and ideologies present to us). Simpler and appealing as it is for me, I nevertheless must develop some *jargon* or technical language to communicate my discoveries. So I beg the reader’s indulgence as I get into this post with a few new terms (not all new for Philosophy, but perhaps new for the reader). The main point of this post is a new, radical concept of being, necessarily deriving from PMI applied to finite beings, which transforms the way of understanding being as such. Previous metaphysical systems tend to conceive reality as the manifestation of dualistic principles (e.g., Yin-Yang) or of “bipolar” “co-principles” (one principle having two inherent aspects, e.g., Plato’s One-Dyad, Aristotle’s act-potency). These systems, probably without exception, conceive being per se as intrinsically finite because theirs is an intrinsically self-limiting being: the Yin limits the Yang, Dyad limits the One, potency limits act, and so forth. Instead, by the application of PMI to finite realities, this metaphysics derives the deep ontological origin and principle of reality to be structurally **tripolar**: it is a “tri-dynamism” constituted in three co-principles: “dynamism per se”, “sufficiency” and “necessity”. These co-principles do not limit each other, rather they are complementary, so that they realize each other. Thus conceived, being does not intrinsically limit or negate itself (which would compel it to be intrinsically finite); rather, it is per se “expansive”. In this metaphysics, the absolutely infinite being (the One) necessarily exists, and even exists juxtaposed with the finite beings of Reality without any contradiction or any sort of mutual exclusion with these. This is a triumph perhaps without precedent in Philosophy, but it is not complete. At the end of the post in the section, “What’s next?”, I shall briefly mention ulterior problems still to be addressed. I call for extending the tri-dynamic notion of being beyond the application of PMI to finite beings to resolve these problems. # Language, Thinking and Being – Where Philosophy Unfolds. >Historical note. Why do I say that Philosophy unfolds over these three general areas, namely, those of “Language, Thinking and Being”? The short answer is: that’s how it is! > >Ever since the great Parmenides of Elea (fl. c. 500 BC) equated being with language and with thinking, expressing his position emphatically, in all but mathematical terms: being = thinking = language, the basic problem of Philosophy has been concentrated in these three areas. > >Parmenides’s originality, in my opinion, is that he fused the notion already developed by Anaximander and Anaximenes of “origin” (*arché*), with that of “nature” (*phýsis*). This was a novelty that conjoined the universal principle or origin, with that of the concrete nature, the “platform” for functions and operations in sensible reality. Note that by this connecting of two things, one universal, the other individual and concrete, Parmenides was possibly trying to evade the problems related to dualism and pluralism by choosing monism (also problematic). > >Gorgias of Leontini, the great rhetorician, destroyed exactly this connection by dialectically “destroying” being. Gorgias’s position is adequately outlined in three steps. A) *Being* does not exist. B) Even if it did exist, it would not be *intelligible*. C) Furthermore, even if it were intelligible, it would not be *communicable or explainable* to others. Thus, the connections that Parmenides made via his notion of being were torn asunder. > >From Gorgias’s criticism to our day, the challenge for Philosophy remains in resolving the One and the Many Problem – the Problem of Being by another name – but specifically in these three areas. (1) By “*dialectic*”, I mean philosophical conversation ordered to attaining the truth. ***Dialectic is the art of adequately connecting or disconnecting terms*** (***or things*** – broad sense of “dialectic” includes connecting or disconnecting ideas or beings). Our dialectic in these posts is ordered to the meeting of minds in earnest research and, I hope, to the acquisition of truth about whatever matter is being considered. This is consistent with the classic definition of dialectic that Socrates, Plato and Aristotle accepted and practiced. *Dialectic (strict sense) belongs to the order of speech or language, whether expressed vocally or in writing. Dialectic (broad sense) can include extra-mental realities and their real or logical connections.* (2) By “***meaning/sense of the dialectic***” (including “thought/thinking”, “logic”, “notion”, “concept”, “idea”, etc.), I mean *the dialectic insofar as interiorized within the participants of the dialectic, in the form of notions, concepts, ideas, and the connections among these based on the rules of logic or inference, forming an internal discourse in the mind; all of which are also open to dialectical discussion.* (3) Then there is *being*, or reality, or existence, to which both the dialectic and the logic make reference. I recall that *ontology* is the discourse or word (*logos*) on being (*ontos*), and that I had defined *being* (and equivalently, existence) in an entirely *ontological* sense. “***Being** is anything insofar as resisting nothingness*”. “***Being** is anything insofar as it is an effective presence*.” I hope the reader can agree with me that these two definitions are mutually inclusive: cohesive, not just consistent. (I shall discuss these definitions in this post.) I also recall that ***nothingness** is understood to be the logical contradictory of being per se*: nothingness would therefore ***notionally*** suppress everything that is effective and that maintains a presence in any sense, “annihilating”, as it were, all realities, finite and infinite. *Nothingness is the absolute **notional** privation of being*. I say ***notionally*** and ***notional***. Why my emphasis of these two terms? If nothingness “acted” outside the mind, as a reality, to suppress anything at all, then *it would be an effective presence*, nothingness would be being, and our minds would incur in a topsy turvy universe where everything is like everything else, and distinctions vanish, a state of mind hardly distinguishable from insanity. *Being and nothingness, being and non being, cannot mix and should not be allowed to mix in any philosophical system*. This I do not expect the reader to accept just because I am saying it. It is one of the fundamental debates in Philosophy: the Problem of Negation (or Contradiction). My dialectic will eventually confirm my position, but the path is long and circuitous. This post is only a step leading towards this thesis. Yes, I could argue here that to accept contradiction as acceptable is silly. It is to say a determined thing, and then to immediately unsay it in the same sentence and breath: a sterile and pointless exercise. That is a sufficient proof of the futility of building on contradictions to my mind: contradictions don’t exist in reality, they are not and cannot be ontological; but others feel different about the matter. (The reader may wish to look up “Hegelian dialectic” on the internet, to get a contrasting point of view.) Modernity and relativism tend to view contradiction as ontological, and as progress, as opening space, “breaching a hole” in reality for “freedom” for the human mind and spirit to unfold and be fully realized. For this view of the world, a certain amount of nihilism and destruction is necessary to make way for human realization. [See my recent post on the philosopher, Dario Antiseri, to get an example of this mind set. https://steemit.com/onemanyproblem/@apollonius/mere-tolerance-an-answer-to-professor-dario-antiseri-s-proposal-of-moral-relativism] “You’ve gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette!” For the same reason, the Infinite (i.e., “God”), which appears to utterly “exile” nothingness beyond being, is therefore interpreted as suppressing the person’s range of possible choices, hence as suppressing personal freedom. So I can understand why “Atheism as the affirmation of man!” has been a popular slogan for those espousing the modernist, relativist view of contradiction and the negation of being per se. But I hold that contradiction occurs, not in being per se, but only in beings capable of “metaphysical reflection” (for now, that means “in thought”, within the mind), and I reject the tendency to turn nothingness into being, and being into nothingness, and to take contradiction as an engine for progress and the “creation” of realities. This rather destroys dialectic, and with it, the possibility of honest dialogue. If we allow contradiction to “exist” in reality, nothing but the “Law of the Strongest” is left for settling disputes. I feel that this would not be very “progressive”. That’s my personal view. I do not expect anyone to accept it, yet. As I said, there is a long path to be walked before we get there. (It involves resolving the “Problem of Evil”.) Enough “nothingness” for now. I return to the three levels of being in which the philosopher plies his dialectical trade: that of language, that of sense or meaning or thought, and that of reality itself. These levels, too, are part of the Problem of the One and the Many, and associated problems. # The One-Many – Completing the Henology with Ontology By Connecting the Diverse Unities into One Whole PMI (“Principle of Metaphysical Induction”), which is familiar to the readers of my previous posts, guarantees to my satisfaction that the metaphysical oppositions given within each level of philosophical discourse (language, thought, being) and among the levels themselves, are inscribed within preexisting realities the *oneness* of which support their existence. But I have not said much about the *being* that connects not only these realities, but realities in general, and realities with the Totality and the One. PMI has yielded so far a Reality filled with finite realities in mutual opposition (the starting point of the inductions), and a hierarchy of unities under which finite realities are united even in their mutual opposing, over which are the two highest and most extensive unities, the Totality and the One. But none of these unities are “pure” ones, “entirely” ones: effecting only a resistance to division. (I recall that *oneness* is anything insofar as resisting division.) In fact, the One, the Totality, each finite unity in the henological hierarchy influences in its subordinates by empowering them to be in opposition with the other finite beings. Their oneness is also outward looking. In other words, the oneness denotes not just resistance to division but influence, effective presence in the other, and the others. By definition, oneness does not exclude connection with others, oneness only asserts a certain self-adhesion. For the sake of the self-containment of the ontology I’m about to develop, given implicitly with the henology discovered using PMI, I think it wise to repeat some of my previous work here, especially for new readers. (I recall for readers that *hen* = one, *logos* = word; so henology = word/ discourse regarding oneness/self-cohesion in beings.) ## Diogenes of Apollonia’s Principle. PMI (Principle of Metaphysical Induction), which compels me to posit the existence of a preexisting unity so that the opposition of finite things is not contradictory, is based on what I call the “Principle of Diogenes of Apollonia”: > ***If things are different, then they must (in some sense) be the same***. If two realities were to be absolutely different, disparate, that is, having absolutely nothing in common, then each would vanish forever into its own “universe”. That is absurd. So if they are different, they must nevertheless have something in common upon which their being different depends. [Original post (scroll down about half way on the document to the heading, “Diogenes of Apollonia and his Principle” and “Can Diogenes’s Principle Really Be True?”): https://steemit.com/onemanyproblem/@apollonius/climbing-mount-everest-with-metaphysical-induction-part-1] In a previous post (cited a couple lines above), I considered the great disparity in being given between a frog in a scummy pond, and a shiny star in the sky. These two beings are very diverse: we say spontaneously, that they have “nothing” to do with each other. But if that were literally true, they could not have the same sky, the same moon, the same cosmos in common. They would each have to exist in absolutely disparate universes. Furthermore, if absolutely disparate, then the universes themselves could never “meet” or converge in any sense, because that would presuppose some commonness in which they could converge. Therefore, this principle which I call “Diogenes’s Principle” is *metaphysically necessary*. This means that the universe would be fragmented into solipsistic universes if this principle did not hold. Therefore, this is a necessary condition for the existence of Reality. Not only that: this is a necessary condition for our thinking about reality. If I were to think about two absolutely disparate finite realities, my mind would have to split in two: one piece of my mind to think within each of the two diverse universes; but then my mind would not be doing too much thinking about anything. Diogenes’s Principle imposes itself on being, thought and language. Now, as frog and star (or whichever opponents the reader might prefer to consider) cannot possibly be absolutely disparate, it follows that they must have something in common, enjoy some common sameness, however intangible to our perceptions or distant from our thoughts. *For things to be different, they must in some sense be the same!* This, I think, suffices to establish the Principle of Diogenes of Apollonia as reasonable. I hold that it also implies the ultimate “connectivity” (by dialectic, broad sense) of any two things whatever. # PMI The formal Principle of Metaphysical induction takes Diogenes’s Principle further, requiring that this sameness or commonness between metaphysical opponents preexist and be a oneness or at least a sameness (i.e., sameness admits divisions, unlike oneness) on which the two depend for their communion in their opposition. That is, it justifies and compels the induction of a preexisting one as the necessary condition for the opposition of two or more finite beings: their opposition compels the induction. The mind has no choice but to accept it (unless it wants to accept the existence of universes in eternal solipsism, which are unthinkable!). Readers of the following post may wish to skip what follows. Taken from “Climbing Mount Everest With Metaphysical Induction. Part 2: The Totality And The Underlying Structure of Reality” [Scroll down to “Establishing the Essential Characteristics of the Totality”: https://steemit.com/onemanyproblem/@apollonius/climbing-mount-everest-with-metaphysical-induction-part-2-the-totality-and-the-underlying-structure-of-reality] — >I recover the argument from the previous post. Here goes... > >I took any two concrete realities, labeled them “X” and “Y”, and saw that the metaphysical opposition between X and Y (denoted, “X–Y”) required for the resolution of their opposition – by the Principle of Metaphysical Induction – the preexistence of a common sameness between X and Y. Otherwise, X and Y would each be notionally isolated in incomparable, solipsistic universes, eternally separated from one another, which of course is absurd. Empowered by the Principle of Metaphysical Induction, which asserts that if X and Y are in opposition, then there must preexist a common sameness between them in which their opposition resolves, I was compelled to assert the preexistence of a common sameness, “C(1)”, by which the opposition between X and Y (“X–Y”), could exist despite their mutual opposition. > >Hence X–Y implied a preexisting C(1). Now either C(1) was bounded by another being or not. If not bounded, C(1) would be unlimited, therefore infinite and God, and my argument attempting to establish the existence of God, the One, would be done. > >So I supposed that C(1) was bounded by some other being, which I’ll call here “X(1)”. From the opposition, C(1)–X(1), I induced the preexistence of C(2). Reiterating the process, if C(2) is unbounded, C(2) is the One and God, and I have finished my argument. > >So I supposed again that C(2) was bounded by some being X(2), with the opposition C(2)–X(2) inducing the preexistence of C(3), which if not God and unbounded, must be bounded by some other being, X(3)..., and so on. > >And by this reiterative process, I built up, from the original opposition of two real, actually existing things, X–Y, a series of ascending, concatenated unities: C(1), C(2), C(3),..., C(n+1),... (where “n” is a counting number); that resolved the oppositions X–Y, C(1)–X(1), C(2)–X(2), C(3)–X(3),..., C(n)–X(n),... > >And I asked the obvious question: Does this ascending concatenated series of unities ever arrive at a final C(z), z being a determined counting number? > >If there is no highest member of this ascending chain of Cs, and therefore no highest counting number z, such that C(z) is the One, then the whole chain vanishes, and perforce, X–Y would also vanish; except that it is a fact of experience, and cannot be equated with a “non fact”. That would be contradictory, and is impossible. > >Perforce, there necessarily must preexist a oneness C(z) with finite counting number z to sustain the existence of X–Y and the whole chain. > >Thus, C(z) is the highest and last member of the series, and I identified it with the One, and God. I also drew out a list explicitly articulating 8 essential properties for all the Cs in the series, not least of which was and is that remarkable and essential property of being that is *transcendence*. — I return to the developments of this post: This establishes the henology of reality up to the One, i.e., C(z), and the Totality (which appears as C(z-1) above; see the linked post to see how the Totality’s being is isolated and its essential characteristics articulated). What I need now from the above derivation based on PMI are: the finite realities, X–Y, and the series of ascending, concatenated unities: C(1), C(2), C(3),..., C(n+1),... (where “n” is a counting number); that resolve the oppositions X–Y, C(1)–X(1), C(2)–X(2), C(3)–X(3),..., C(n)–X(n),... The opposition, X–Y, induces (per PMI) the necessary induction of the whole series upon which X–Y depends for its existence: (X–Y) < C(1) < C(2) < C(3) <,..., < C(z-1) < C(z) = the One, where C(z-1) = the Totality, C(z) = the One, and the symbol, “<”, means *metaphysical dependence of that, before and to the right of the symbol, on that after and to the left of the symbol*; thus, “the Totality < the One” simply means that the Totality depends metaphysically on the preexisting One. As the PMI unveiled the henological structure of the whole series in one swoop, it will unveil the internal ontological structure of each of the unities (the “Cs”). The emerging ontology will fill out the “skeleton of reality” that the henology has revealed into a seamless whole wherein the “gaps” between the unities are filled with oppositions ontologically adequate to fill the gaps. ### The metaphysical necessity of PMI Before moving on to the ontology, I think I ought to review the metaphysical necessity of PMI, as I did for the Principle of Diogenes of Apollonia. It’s too easy for a reader to overlook PMI’s imposing, metaphysical necessity. I consider two finite realities, say “A” and “B”, in opposition “A–B”. I first want to convince myself of something that is of common sense: that A does not *entirely* derive from B. To press the issue, I consider what would follow if A did entirely derive from the being of B? Then A would be B itself or be an aspect of B: A would vanish and the opposition A–B would also vanish, contradicting my starting point, that A and B are in metaphysical opposition. But let me press the issue still more, however absurd the exercise may seem. I want to try to force myself to accept that A is in opposition with B and at the same time A receives its being *entirely* from B (of course, A receives *some* being from B in the form of the opposition itself by which B resists A’s intrusion into its unity – there is no issue there). So pushing this issue to the limit, if A receives its being entirely from B, all the while remaining in opposition with B, then B must straddle both sides of the opposition it has with A. B must give origin to A’s opposition with every other finite reality, including B itself. Thus, B becomes the being of A and all that it opposes, including A, “not-A”, the Totality, as well as B itself, the finite reality B has become infinite! But we started off supposing that B was finite. This contradicts my point of departure for B, and so I conclude and must assert that A does not derive entirely from B, but also from other being or beings. Furthermore, it is easy to see by interchanging the realities A and B in the same argument, that B cannot possibly derive entirely from A, otherwise A would absorb B and all reality with it. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible that for any two finite realities in opposition, A–B, that A be absorbed in B or that B be absorbed in A. A and B cannot be in absolutely disparate universes. If that were the case, they could not be in opposition. Therefore, to respect their opposition and distinct unities, I must accept that they enjoy a common sameness not reducible to the other, hence different from each of them, by which they can be in metaphysical opposition. (This essentially restates Diogenes’s Principle.) *Conclusion: PMI is metaphysically necessary for the existence of any opposition and relation among finite things, under pain of notionally annihilating all oppositions and absorbing all finite beings into infinite being.* I beg pardon for this “impacted-wisdom-tooth-extraction” of an argument. But I think it is important to bring out the full significance of PMI and Diogenes’s Principle and the impossibility of coherently rejecting these. To reject either of them only serves to prove their validity and necessity, because to reject either is to create an opposition, even if only in ones mind, and more so in debate with someone else. But to create opposition is to create the need to appeal to them for adequate resolution of the opposition in the mind or in debate! I have felt the need to emphasize the pivotal role it is plays in the foundation of this metaphysics, and in the demolition of relativist systems of reality. PMI does not take prisoners. If the reader wants to see an example of how effectively PMI can liquidate sophistry, I refer him or her to the post confuting and rejecting Professor Dario Antiseri’s proposal of nihilism as the foundation for ethics (cited towards the beginning of this post). It is a gory spectacle, but there are valiant souls that can stomach it. Aristotle is famous for his defense of the Principle of Non Contradiction (which he was the first to formulate). He argued that anyone who would argue against it had to use it in his argument against it, which would necessarily be contradictory. He was right. But his principle was one of logic, and narrow in scope. PMI is metaphysical, its scope is infinite, fording the three levels of language, thinking and being: no finite being falls beyond its power of self imposition. So if a hapless Mr A wants to contradict Mr B, who wisely and forthrightly declares PMI to be absolutely necessary, Mr A implies that there must preexist a reality and unity, “C”, in which the difference between him and Mr B resolves and by which, both he and Mr B can coexist in their differences. Mr. A has lost the controversy from the moment he started it. Unless, of course, Mr. A choose to go beyond proper limits, “absorbing” Mr B’s ontological integrity into himself. In doing so, Mr. A would make himself into “God”, that is, into a totalitarian, by force of will, which is to say, violently. PMI is the necessary condition for its deniers to deny it (dialectically, not by violence), and more generally, for finite things to coexist in opposition. PMI imposes respect for the ontological integrity of each opposing thing, so that one not be absorbed in another or become “God” for the other. So far as persons go, there seems to be a principle of mutual respect built into being in virtue of this metaphysical principle. Each person gets his ontological space, within which his being unfolds and develops. Without violating the other person’s ontological integrity, he can make his own ontological integrity be respected. But in the arena of human persons, there is also free will... and the respect due to the other person, a reality that is ontologically given, is not always seconded by free persons. *PMI is necessary for dialogue and controversy, therefore it is impossible to disagree with it non violently without implicitly asserting it. Therefore, it is metaphysically necessary and incontrovertible. Clearly, its realm straddles all three levels of being, thought and discourse.* # Being Is Intensive and Connective, Uniting The Many and the One Into a Seamless Whole So again, let’s take two finite realities, call them “A” and “B”. By PMI, there must preexist a one or sameness, call it “C”, on which the existence of A–B depends. In earlier posts, I considered the aspect of unity or oneness in C and in the series of “Cs”, each of which depends on the Totality and the One. Now I want to consider the inner constitution of all these elements: their ontology. The induction applies to the whole concatenated chain derived in earlier posts and above: (A–B) < C < C(2) < C(3) <,..., < the Totality < the One. To derive the ontology, I make the following 9 observations based on these connections. (1) C is the commons sameness in A and B so that they can oppose in A–B. Therefore, *the being of C is in A and B*. Therefore, ***C is intensive*** with respect to A and B. It follows that C’s being, insofar as intensive, radiates beyond the oneness of C. By saying ***C is intensive***, I mean that the “stuff”, the “being” constituting C as C, *transcends* what is C per se, crossing over from the oneness of C into the oneness (or sameness) of A and of B, into what could be called, ***C-in-A*** and ***C-in-B***. And because C’s being is constitutive of A and B, it must also be constitutive of the opposition that is A–B: thus there is also the reality of ***C-in-(A–B)***. The scope of C’s being influencing in all of there realities constitutes the oneness or sameness of all of these. Note that this transcendence at the same time induces a hierarchy from greater transcendence to lesser transcendence (and therefore to greater *immanence*). Namely, to C’s being in se appertains the highest level of transcendence. But as C’s intensive being radiates outward, “transcending” its oneness, it enters orders of being more *immanent* (or present to us, here on the outside in the sensible world): first into the sensible realities, A and B, and then into their most immanent manifestation by which they sensibly affect/effect each other and us, as C’s being radiates into the opposition A–B. I must be emphatic about transcendence (as I have been in an earlier post) because it is hotly disputed by modern and contemporary thinkers who reject that being can do such a thing: radiate outwards from a center into other realities, even physically at a distance?! Materialistic and empiristic ideologies reject this out of hand. “It’s spooky!” it is complained. To this mind set, the appearances of things seem more a veiling than a manifesting. I reject this interpretation, I do not think it adequately reflects reality. By PMI, C’s being must transcend C itself, and insofar as it crosses the threshold of C’s oneness into the world beyond, it manifests itself, it does not hide itself. Grant it, the manifesting is never total or complete, but can be quite discrete, and therefore, lead to misinterpretations. I do not feel that I have to “defend” transcendence. PMI absolutely imposes it on me. If A and B are in opposition, perforce, necessarily, beyond any reasonable questioning of it – for the world would explode into myriad fragments were it not true – there must preexist that C making, enabling, and effecting, the necessary ***connection*** between A and B so that these can be in opposition. This is metaphysically necessary. To attempt to gainsay this is to contradict PMI, a futile exercise. I don’t think I need to say more about it. Therefore, I am defending nothing, I am compelling nothing, nor forcing anything upon the gentle reader. I am only respecting the absolute self imposition of PMI and reality itself: the being of C, of metaphysical necessity, transcends itself entering into the beings of A and of B, and into their opposition to make their opposition real and one. Hence, there is no “bridge problem” between A and B, no “gaps”: neither exists in absolute solipsism with respect to the other or with respect to any other existent. Being and existing are done necessarily in “community”. Indeed, *C and A and B form a unity* in virtue of the connection made real by C’s intensiveness. *Because C is intensive, C forms connections with A and B, and possibly other beings*. (2) C resists division into C-in-A and C-in-B (otherwise, A and B cannot oppose each other). Therefore C’s being self-adheres and ontologically forms a one (the henological dimension already considered in earlier posts). From (1) and (2), it follows that C has an outward aspect and an inward aspect to its being... # Being Is A Tri-dynamism (3) ***C is a dynamism of sufficiency and necessity***. C’s being is thus inherently constituted in two aspects: an intensive aspect by which it connects other beings; and an aspect by which it adheres to itself constituting itself as one. I have discovered two *dynamic* aspects in the C’s being as a consequence to PMI applied to finite beings in opposition A–B. One aspect is intensive and faces beyond the oneness of C; the other aspect is C’s self-adhering. I name the intensive aspect of C’s being the ***necessity*** of C; I call the self-adhering aspect the ***sufficiency*** of C. Both sufficiency and necessity are part of the standard philosophical jargon, and have other meanings. If there is any ambiguity, I’ll write “tridynamic sufficiency” or “tridynamic necessity”, or other appropriate disambiguation. C’s ***necessity*** is *necessary* for the opposition A–B and therefore for A and B to actuate as beings. C’s ***sufficiency*** is *sufficient* for C to endure as a oneness so that A–B, A and B can continue existing, though it is not necessarily sufficient for C to endure in oneness (unless C is the One). (4) *C is a tridynamism*. I already know that C’s sufficiency and necessity belong to the unity C; PMI applied to the opposition between C’s sufficiency and necessity implies the preexistence of a reality giving issue to the two aspects. I identify C with the common oneness enabling the opposition. *C per se is therefore a **dynamism** constituting the unity of sufficiency and necessity deriving from C*. I call C a “***dynamism***” though it could be called a “*tri-dynamism*” of three aspects inherently related to being: the *intensive aspect*, the *self-adhering aspect*, and *the origin and principle* of the two, the ***dynamism per se***. For the sake of simplicity, I shall use the term “dynamism” more often than "tri-dynamism". *Dynamism* comes from Greek, meaning, “power” or “potency”. The series of Cs are what power and enable the whole system of being to exist and operate as being and beings, which is what motivated me to so name them. # The Hierarchy Given In The Three Aspects Of Dynamisms (5) The ontological hierarchy among the three aspects of a dynamism. It is clear that both the necessity and sufficiency depend on the dynamism per se (because of the easy derivation of the opposition between necessity and sufficiency via PMI). The necessity is the origin of the intensiveness of being, which is not intensive without transcending the oneness of the dynamism. Therefore necessity depends on the sufficiency (that is origin of the oneness), as well as on the dynamism per se. Sufficiency depends principally on the dynamism per se. Hence, using the symbol, “<”, to denote metaphysical dependence: necessity < sufficiency; and necessity < dynamism per se. sufficiency < dynamism. (6) ***Insofar as C is a dynamism, C is being; and insofar as C is being, C is a dynamism***. Our working definition of being is now verified and refined to a greater degree of precision within the metaphysical system I’m developing. These were the definitions I have been using for “being” as mentioned earlier in this post. (a) Being is anything insofar as it resists nothingness. (b) Being is anything insofar as it is an effective presence. I believe definition (b) is a refinement of definition (a) making more precise what “resisting nothingness” means. A being is that if and only if it is a “presence”, but not any presence (that can vanish into a solipsism, not effecting anything but disappearing in a “black hole”, as it were). A being that really is/exists must “impose” itself upon its surroundings. A unicorn might exist only in my imagination, and be of limited effectiveness. But at least it distracts me from thinking “1 + 1 = 2”, it makes me clear my mind from the distraction before effectively adding up numbers. That is some level effectiveness. So even the imaginary unicorn “exists” because of this minimal “effectiveness” in thought. Now underlying being is dynamism, which is essentially the unity of necessity and sufficiency as stated above: necessity is origin of “effectiveness” and “opposition” and “intensiveness”; sufficiency is origin of “presence” and “oneness”. So the essence of dynamism is its effective presence, which confirms this definition of being. (c) ***Being is dynamism***. This is the formal definition of being, i.e., defined in terms of PMI and the observation of opposition, “formal” because it has been developed from within the metaphysical system, is defined in terms of the system. # The Fundamental Structure Of All Beings As Beings is Dynamism (7) All the above conclusions and definitions (1-6) apply to all reality and realities. Heretofore, I have been speaking of A and B, and their opposition, and their resolving preexisting unity by which they can oppose, C. Now I extend these results to the entire concatenated metaphysical chain: (A–B) < C < C(2) < C(3) <,..., < the Totality < the One, by noting that all the forgoing arguments that applied to C, were based on PMI, and therefore directly applicable to all the series including up to the Totality. The internal structure of the One I shall handle as a case apart. (I do not want to find “opposition” between an “eternal necessity” and an “eternal sufficiency” in the One, apparently contradicting the already established fact that the One is intrinsically infinite, so that it cannot have internal oppositions.) Furthermore, I extend the results to each and every finite existent, “U”, using an important result from my earlier post cited above, “Climbing Mount Everest With Metaphysical Induction. Part 2: The Totality And The Underlying Structure of Reality”, Thesis T6: *T6: The opposition between any finite reality, U, and the Totality, i.e., U–T, resolves only in the One.* U must be structured internally as a dynamism: it has an intensive aspect (because in opposition with T) and a self-adhering aspect (without which it would be absorbed in T) implying internal opposition between sufficiency and necessity, implying that U, too, is a dynamism (by the application of PMI to the opposition between sufficiency and necessity). So Thesis T6 and PMI imply that the above results extend to every finite reality U that exists. But is the One a Tridynamism? It’s not clear that PMI can be applied directly to the internal aspects of the One. (8) The One is the eternal dynamism in real analogy with every other dynamism. The One’s necessary sufficiency nevertheless differentiates it from every other dynamism. Though the applicability of PMI directly to the internal constituent of the One may not lead to valid conclusions, I can nevertheless induce from the opposition U–T (U being any finite being) the necessary preexistence of the One, and that it must be effective or “intensive” in some sense. (8a) The being of the One must be real so as to support the existence of all finite realities. Therefore it must be intensive and cohesive, it must connect and self-adhere in oneness, it must exercise necessity and sufficiency. I think this is particularly clear if we consider that any finite reality, “U”, is necessarily in opposition with the Totality, U–T (Thesis T6, cited earlier). Applying PMI to this last opposition requires that One be both intensive and cohesive to sustain the opposition, requiring from the One both cohesiveness and intensiveness; therefore the One must manifest necessity and sufficiency as diverse aspects of its being. (8b) Besides, if the One is not structurally a tri-dynamism as all other realities, then it cannot be the common oneness and sameness that all have in common as necessary condition for the resolution of all their oppositions. Instead, the One would be structurally different from all other realities: it would be in metaphysical opposition with them. So it could not be ultimate reality such as “the One” should be. I would have to apply PMI to induce another higher One to ground reality. And if there were no end to these higher Ones, all reality would not exist but would fragment into the myriad dissociated pieces of a universal nihilism. But this is metaphysically impossible. Therefore, the One must be structured as a tridynamism, even as all other dynamisms that exist, all of which must find in the One the most fundamental sameness to resolve their own oppositions among themselves. That includes the ordering of dependence between the dynamism per se, the sufficiency and the necessity (where “<” signifies metaphysical dependence): necessity < sufficiency; and necessity < dynamism per se. sufficiency < dynamism. (8c) The One’s dynamism per se, sufficiency and necessity are coextensive. However, the One in intrinsically and extrinsically infinite, absolutely excluding any internal articulations or distinctions, *so each aspect within the One must be coextensive with every other aspect*. (Otherwise there would be internal opposition within the One, making it a repetition of the Totality, which is impossible as it would leave all oppositions without resolution). ***Independent of the application of PMI***, therefore, the eternal dynamism per se, the eternal sufficiency, and the eternal necessity, which constitute the eternal dynamism that is the One, must be coextensive and coincide with the entire being of the One, except for “orientation” (per se, self-adhering, intensive-outward-looking). (I can’t help wondering out loud, “What kind of internal effervescence must there be in the One, that its internal being appears to be continually “exploding” in every direction even while its oneness remains eternal and unflappable?”) (8d) The One is *necessarily sufficient*, it is the apex of necessity and sufficiency. Therefore, as the eternal sufficiency and eternal necessity are one and inseparable (apparently in a tug-of-war), the One is *necessarily sufficient*: it contains within itself all that it needs and ever will need to continue existing forever in its Oneness. I therefore call the being of the One, ***eternal***: it is the ***eternal dynamism***, that is, ***eternal dynamism per se***, ***eternal sufficiency***, and ***eternal necessity***. *Something is said to be “eternal” if and only if it is necessarily sufficient, or equivalently, if its necessity and sufficiency are coextensive*. (8e) The being of the One is irreducible to the being of finite beings: there is no pantheistic, immanentistic or relativistic mixing of the One’s infinite being with finite being. This is due to the necessary sufficiency of the One and the necessary insufficiency of the finite many. It is due to the intrinsic infinitude of the being of the One, and the intrinsic finiteness of the many finite realities. These are structurally two diverse orders of being that cannot “mix” or be confused into an immanentistic “soup”. (8f) “Being” is a term used with *real analogy* based on the structural similitude of all beings and Being: “being” means “dynamism”, as defined in this posting. I think I have shown that (7) holds: “All the above conclusions and definitions (1-6) apply to all reality and realities”; including even the One, with only the structural differences given in (8), compelled upon the One only because it is the ultimate reality grounding every other reality. Therefore, all beings are dynamisms, essentially connected with the being of the eternal dynamism and the dynamism of the Totality (as per Thesis T6). All finite beings are dynamisms that really participate in the dynamism of the Totality and that of the One. The analogy is therefore real, structural, and not metaphor. In other words, both “language” and “thinking” are straddled by “being”. There is no fiction here. What is this difference between real analogy and metaphor, why do I insist? If Robert Burns cries out in song that “My luv is like a red, red rose!”, he is using metaphor. Love is not colored red; yet the poet is not lying, he is saying something to be understood metaphorically, not by real analogy. “Being” points to the real and signifies the real. Therefore, there is a common structure and sense that legitimizes elaborating a science, a body of systematic knowledge, around “being” (as a notion, i.e., that of dynamism), for the term, the notion and the reality are focused on one real subject. (9) ***Tridynamic Metaphysics*** is a science. On this definition of being as a (tri-)dynamism lies the foundation of this new metaphysical “science” (science = systematic knowledge), which I am calling *Tridynamic Metaphysics*. Every science must have a unitary material object and a formal object, which is a mode of access to the material object. The material object and starting point of Tridynamic Metaphysics is concrete being, which means sensible oppositions. The formal object or mode of access to the object is or are the Diogenes’s Principle and PMI. I have already shown the unitary nature of being or dynamism and how all oppositions are of necessity embedded ultimately in dynamisms, all of which are hierarchically ordered under the eternal dynamism that is the One. Therefore, I need say no more about the unity of the material object. I have sufficiently articulated this science. *Tridynamic Metaphysics is the science of being insofar as it is being, or equivalently, of dynamism insofar as it is dynamism.* Ontology and Metaphysics indicate essentially the same science. "Metaphysics" is generally used to include the Totality and the One, the ultimate foundations of being. "Ontology" is generally used to indicate concentration on the finite and less fundamental realities, especially those that are immanent or sensible. # What’s next? What About Thinking Falsehood, Thinking The Infinite And Movement’s “Destruction” Of Actual Being? I believe I’ve done something nifty. I have discovered a new way to conceive being so that “contradiction” and “negation” do not have to be attributed to finite reality. It seems that I’ve even discovered how to prove the existence of an actually infinite fount for all reality. It seems that the core of being has been correctly unveiled. Parmenides tried to exile negation from being by notionally fusing being with thinking and language. His dialectic was therefore the first to pretend to arrive at true conclusions. But Plato, who called himself a “son” (philosophically, not by blood) of Parmenides found that he could not continue in the paternal footsteps because he was not able to defend Philosophy against the predations of the “Sophist”, the liar and manipulator of language. After all, where does the “false” fit into a system of being that does not leave any space in language or in being for that which is not being, the negation of being? To isolate and define the sophist and his sophistries, Plato had to somehow introduce the false, the opposite of being, into being itself. He felt compelled to introduce into Philosophy, “that-diverse-from-being”. So he thrust (stabbed?) “non being” into the heart of being. He reversed Parmenides’s purely positive notion of being with his epic “Parricide of Parmenides” (operated in the dialogue he wrote by the same name, “The Sophist”). Thereafter, being has been conceived to be constitutively limited by its own internal negation, and that is but half a step from the absolute nihilism of a fragmented universe. And the human person, composed of “pieces” drawn from the fragmented universe, also becomes fragmented. This has been a disaster. Humanity, especially with the eclipse of a religion that forcefully affirmed the unity of the human person under the unity of God the Creator, has become “schizophrenic” in the etymological sense, and perhaps in the psychiatric sense as well. So before I start cheering my success, I had better find a way to account for this apparent negation of reality... And it’s not only the false, that calls for special attention. Also the infinite is a problem. If I take any finite reality, call it “X”, and if X is really very clearly defined, such as this pen on my desk, then that-which-is-not-X is an infinitely extensive reality that is necessarily real in the measure that the X is real. Furthermore, this infinite “not-X” appears as a necessary condition for my thinking “X”, for my clearly and spontaneously distinguishing X from what is not X. In other words, if I’ve succeeded at chasing negation out of finite reality, I still have not shown how I can fit negation into my thinking without impairing my thinking... On which side of the contradiction between X and not-X is my mind when I’m thinking “X”? When I’m distinguishing if something is X or not, don’t my mental operations split in two: between that which is X and that which is not X? Doesn’t that destroy my thinking of X, of the pen or whatever it might be? It would seem that my thinking must step outside my head to capture both terms of the contradiction in one same mental process. That is another arrow that the sophist has in his quiver, ever ready to pounce on me. And then there is movement. Every movement seems to destroy at least partially that which is determined in being at the same instant. How can movement, an undeniable reality, be conceived so that it is not another negation in the bowels of being; rendering it intrinsically finite, universally contingent, in a universal nihilism? The results obtained in this post are valid for stable, non moving being. Do they apply to being that is in movement? I have not yet reached the finish line, granted, but I’m not quitting. I daresay, I think I have these challenges already whipped! Tuesday, July 4, 2017. 7773 words Copyright pending.

Topics