The War & Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception : Book 3
Introducing Paradoxes of the Future - A New Perception

Conclusion : The Peer Review : Western Philosophy



Western Philosophical Development*

1. Introduction
2. Before the Pre-Socratics
3. The Pre-Socratics
4. The Invention of Philosophy
5. The Eleatics
6. Empedocles, Plurality, and Greek Atomism
7. The Sophists
8. Socrates
9. Plato
10. Pythagoras
11. Aristotle
12. Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy
13. The Skeptics
14. Medieval Philosophy
15. Saint Augustine / Augustine of Hippo
16. Boethius / Anicius Manlius Severinus
17. Saint Anselm / Anselm of Canterbury
18. Saint Thomas Aquinas
19. William Ockham
20. The Collapse of Scholasticism
21. The Renaissance
22. Political Philosophy
23. Niccoló Machiavelli
24. Thomas Hobbes
25. René Descartes
26. Rationalism
27. Baruch Spinoza
28. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
29. Isaac Newton
30. John Locke
31. George Berkeley
32. David Hume
33. George Wilhelm Hegel
34. Soren Kierkegaard
35. The American & British Idealists
36. Jeremy Bentham & John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism
37. Fredrich Nietzsche
38. Logic and Mathematical Foundations: Logical Positivism
39. Karl Popper
40. Ludwig Wittgenstein
41. Symbiotic Panentheism

Peer Review II – Historical Development
The following one page summations emerge directly from the issues discussed in Tractate 18: Why Now: A Short Introduction to Western Philosophy. The numbering system is left intact to facilitate the reader’s ability to quickly cross check the context from which the questions are extracted. Both the numbered table of contents and the panel orientation are provided.

The questions are at times expressed as addressing issues regarding a particular philosopher and at other times the questions appear to be addressing issues regarding a subject area of philosophy as opposed to originating from an individual. The reason subject areas of philosophy are included as focal points is due to the understanding that subject areas represent the perceptions of groups composed of individuals as opposed to being a single individual. As such a group of individuals have as much impact upon philosophy as do individuals themselves.

As the questions and answers progress, one will begin to understand how it is that the forty philosophers/philosophies each represent a piece of the jigsaw puzzle which when fully assembled created a picture of a complete model of reality. The problem up to the time of this work was that neither the Cartesian nor the non-Cartesian models explained reality in a manner eliminating contractictions as opposed to creating contradictions. None of the philosophers/philosophies had put the puzzle pieces together as a complete picture, a complete system. As such, each philosopher/philosophy fought to preserve their personal piece of the puzzle.

Assembling the forty puzzle pieces generates the concept of ‘being’ being ‘Being’ being in addition to the concept of ‘Being’ being ‘being’ being. In short assembling the forty puzzle pieces generates item # 41 of Tractate 18.

This work: The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception deals specifically with the aspect of ‘being’ being ‘Being’, understanding individuality, as it pertains to metaphysics and leaves the aspect of ‘Being’ being ‘being’ to a field yet to be named.

The question becomes: Why does the new metaphysical understanding being introduced emerge now? The new metaphysical perception emerges now because we have reached the limits as to what it is the Cartesianism metaphysical system and the non-Cartesianism metaphysical system have to offer us intellectually both as individuals and as a specie.

We as individuals and as a specie have progressed beyond the confining limits Cartesianism and non-Cartesianism impose upon us as intelligent explorers of the vast expanses of our physical universe. In fact: We as individuals and as a specie have progressed beyond the confining limits Cartesianism and non-Cartesianism impose upon us as intelligent explorers of the vast expanses of future universes we begin to discover.

Having explained the limits of Cartesianism and non-Cartesianism as opposed to the expansiveness a non-Cartesian system powered by a Cartesian system, ‘being’ being ‘Being’ creates, we can now begin a detailed examination of the system through a short summation format where the forty isolated pieces of the puzzle, as listed in Tractate 18, are exposed to the new Metaphysical system’s examination.

The first short summation outlines twelve major questions and themes, which define the essence of humankind’s search for its identity, its purpose, its meaning, for the very meaning of existence itself. In fact the twelve questions and themes strike at the heart of the most fundamental of human inquiry: Is there such a ‘thing’ as existence itself.

1. Introduction - Q1:

What are the major themes and questions of philosophy? There are many, but the most persistent of these would include the following:

What is existence?
Do we exist, and why?
What is reality?
What can we know?
What is knowledge?
What is truth?
What is the purpose and meaning of life?
Why is the individual important?
What is our function within society?
Is there a difference between "appearance" and "reality"?
Do we possess free will, or are our actions determined?
What is morality?

S: This work introduces a new metaphysical perception, which presents specific answers to these twelve questions. All of the questions are addressed in great detail throughout the work, The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception. In fact the very purpose of the work is to explain the shortcomings generated by the Aristotelian Cartesian system and the Hegelian non-Cartesian system in regards to their developing conflicting answers to these twelve questions.

But the work does more than simply point out the shortcomings of the two metaphysical systems.

This work provides a solution, builds a model, which answers our questions regarding the whole of reality itself. This work provides reasonable/rational/non-paradoxical answers to all twelve questions simultaneously. The means to finding the answers to the twelve questions simultaneously lies in expanding our perception of reality. The single model, which answers the twelve questions, inserts the Cartesian within the non-Cartesian. Such a process can occur only with the development of a metaphysical model, which is original but not original. Such a system merges the Cartesian system and the non-Cartesian system into one system, a Cartesian system within a non-Cartesian system. When taking into account the active existence of the verb being, symbiosis, as well as the passive form of the verb being, panentheism, one obtains the simple description of the system, symbiotic panentheism.

Philosophically a description of the new metaphysical system might better be described as ‘being’ being ‘Being’. The reason the system is not titled ‘Being’ being ‘being’ is because we in philosophy are concerned with our, ‘beings’ role in reality. We are concerned with what it is we/‘beings’ are to accomplish in reality. We are concerned with the individual’s/‘being’s role in terms of existence. We are concerned with the answers to the twelve questions listed in terms of our/‘beings’ function.

The point: The twelve questions and themes as well as questions and themes similar to those listed, are relevant to the public and those controlling the arena of philosophy have no right to exile discussion of such questions from the field of philosophy just because they/the leaders in the field of philosophy religions, and science consider such questions to be irresolvable. The leaders in the fields of philosophy, religion, and science may believe the questions cannot be answered while their separate fields remain isolated one from the other but that does not mean we as a specie cannot answer such questions if we bring philosophy, religion, and science together to tackle the problem as opposed to our present approach of keeping these fields of study isolated one from the other. And who would benefit from such a cooperative action? You and I would benefit. Our specie would benefit. Future ‘being’s we encounter on our travels throughout the universe would benefit. The whole itself would benefit.

1. Introduction - Q2:

Can you provide a brief simplistic explanation regarding answers to the twelve questions?

What is existence?
Do we exist, and why?
What is reality?
What can we know?
What is knowledge?
What is truth?
What is the purpose and meaning of life?
Why is the individual important?
What is our function within society?
Is there a difference between "appearance" and "reality"?
Do we possess free will, or are our actions determined?
What is morality?

S: A brief answer to these twelve questions is provided as a one-page synopsis preceding each Volume of this three-volume work. A slightly longer answer is provided as Tractate 12: Resolving the Problem of Nihilism.

Having stated where it is one can obtain a brief answer to the twelve questions; let me attempt to answer the questions in light of the new model - symbiotic panentheism where a greater reality exists as abstraction within which the physical universe is located:

What is existence?
Existence is both physical in nature and abstractual in nature.

Do we exist, and why?
We exist. We exist to circumvent the concept of eternal recurrence Nietzsche introduced which in scientific terms might be referred to as permanent equilibrium as opposed to the process of growth or decay.

What is reality?
Reality is both physical in nature and abstractual in nature.

What can we know?
We can ‘know’ what we create and experience abstractually and what we create and experience physically

What is knowledge?
Knowledge is that of which we are aware.

What is truth?
Truth is what is relevant to an existence functioning within either of the two regions of existence: the physical and the abstract.

What is the purpose and meaning of life?
The purpose in life is to add to the Whole

Why is the individual important?
It is from the individual/multiplicity that the Whole/singularity becomes more than what it is.

What is our function within society?
Our function within society is to ‘create’ and experience and to be responsible for what it is we as individuals ‘create’/’experience’ for it is what we as individuals ‘create’/’experience’ that we add to the Whole.

Is there a difference between "appearance" and "reality"?
Appearance is what composes the abstract and ‘reality’ is what composes the physical.

Do we possess free will, or are our actions determined?
If we exist we possess free will. Without free will we are not who we appear to be, ourselves.

What is morality?
Morality is universally acceptable knowing action of free will which initially emerges from the categorical imperatives a metaphysical system (systems encompassing physical universes and what it is physical universes lie within) generates. Morality then progresses as knowing actions of free will which one initiates based upon the combination of beliefs/religion, observations/science, and reason/philosophy.

The point: Answers to such questions can be stated and the rational/reasonableness of such answers are available in their entirety in The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception.

1. Introduction – Q3:

Philosophy appears to have formed many specialized branches of study, all of which ignore the question regarding the individual’s purpose for existing. Can you comment briefly regarding:

Above all, philosophy, which comes from the Greek work philosophia, means the love of wisdom.

The study of philosophy, in the Western tradition, began in Ancient Greece early in the 6th century B.C. Since that time, the range and scope of its journey has expanded into very specialized and distinct branches. Among these branches are:

Metaphysics0000The Study of Existence
0000The Study of Knowledge
0000The Study of Action
0000The Study of Force
0000The Study of Art
0000The Study of Reason
0000The Study of Communication

These in turn consist of many subcategories, including: …

Going back to first principles is a reoccurring theme, as is the reassessment of well-established or even forgotten works. It is organic. It changes constantly. … philosophy continually returns to its past in order to formulate new philosophical perceptions. As we change, so does our appreciation of our philosophical heritage.

S: The significance of philosophy with respect to ‘the love of wisdom’ and significance of philosophy’s role regarding ‘the love of wisdom’ is addressed in the introduction to Volume III.

Regarding the branches of philosophy: One cannot begin to examine branches two through six, nor can one begin to examine the subcategories of philosophy until one embraces the validity of existence itself. The action of embracing the validity of existence then moves into answering three basic questions in a very precise sequence:

1. Where are we?
2. What are we?
3. Why do we exist?

The process begins with the examination of the basic question: Where are we? In other words are we in the physical, meaning is the physical the limit of existence or are we in an existence other than the physical. This question led to the concept of Cartesianism/physicality/cause and effect existence versus non-Cartesianism/abstractual existence. Such a debate led to the ethical foundation, the ethical base for behavior of physical hedonism versus abstractual/altruistic behavior.

The point: What is ethical or moral behavior? The foundation for such an understanding lies in understanding the answers to the three questions listed above. Philosophically such an understanding leads to the development of what is often referred to as universal/categorical imperatives or what some would refer to as first principle, second principle, etc.

Regarding first principle, Tractate 6 dealt with the issue of Kant’s first categorical imperative and why this categorical imperative was not a categorical imperative. The tractate outlines just what the first categorical imperative would be under the new metaphysical perception of ‘being’ being ‘Being’ and then lists the second categorical imperative. The issue is addressed in great detail as to the rational behind the establishment of the two categorical imperatives and their order.

1. Introduction – Q4:

Philosophy appears to have lost its way. Would you care to comment regarding the statement:

But what should the future of philosophy look like? Should it continue on its present course, a course that excludes metaphysical speculation, or should it return to a more inclusive and broader understanding of philosophy’s function?

Philosophy, in its present form, has turned away from the very questions that it was created to answer. As such, it has become less and less relevant to the public, a public that still seeks answers to questions regarding meaning and purpose.

S: Perhaps the best response to the statements given lies in the next paragraph presented in the introduction:

One response to the present impasse is Symbiotic Panentheism. It explores the model of a new perception that could integrate the three disciplines of philosophy, science and religion. In so doing, it outlines how the conflicts that have defined our species could be eliminated. As our perception of our significance changes, so do we.

Regarding the issue involving the validity of the subject of metaphysics. If we do not know ‘where we are’ we cannot begin to understand ‘what we are’ which in turn prevents us from knowing our function for existing, the purpose for existing.

We have a long way to go before we can say unequivocally: There is no ‘outside’ to the physical universe. Until we can state such a fact unequivocally, the study of ‘meta’ - beyond, ‘physics’ – the physical, will remain a critically relevant subject for the public regarding the efforts to answer questions regarding meaning and purpose.

The point: Philosophy has a moral obligation to return to the basics of its intended purpose, which is to address the questions:

Where are we?0000Where is the individual in the scheme of it all?
What are we?0000What is this ‘thing’ we call individuality?
Why do we exist?
Why does individuality exist?

This work is an attempt to help philosophy return to its moral task of finding answers to the most basic of questions, which have haunted our specie as far back in time as we are capable of remembering.

2. Before the Pre-Socratics – Q1:

Why is the individual important?

Before the Ancient Greeks, two great Empires existed in close proximity to the Eastern Mediterranean: These two Empires, though they differed outwardly in many respects, had much in common with each other. Both the Egyptian and Babylonian Empires were the first two examples of urban civilization, each of which supported large populations.

Despite their size there was little or no diversity of outlook or opinion. It was the kings and priests – possessors of magical powers – who ruled their people. These civilizations, with their theocratic and monarchical institutions, had little tolerance for diverse viewpoints. As a consequence, there was little scientific or technological progress or innovation other than that employed to support the prevailing belief systems.

S: Diversity of viewpoint existed before the ancient Greeks. Diversity of viewpoints existed through the acknowledged forms of heads of state: the kings and priests. It took many millennium for the concept of diverse viewpoints existing through individuals as opposed to the state. In essence it took many millennium for the concept of multiplicity/individuality/diversity to rise to the level of superceding the concept of the state being more important than the individual.

The argument regarding the concept of multiplicity versus singularity was fully addressed in Tractate 11: The Error of Philosophy. But what does the issue have to do with a new metaphysical perception?

The new metaphysical perception being presented in this work, suggests that what the multiplicity of individuality our universes spawns, suggests that what the individuality the Cartesian concept of ‘cause and effect’/’beginning and end’ generates is vital to the concept of abstractual existence of the whole/singularity, non-Cartesian existence. Understanding such a model helps civilizations to simultaneously strengthen both the concept regarding the significance of the state and the concept regarding the significance of the individual.

In the ancient civilizations of the Egyptians and Babylonians, the kings and priests symbolized the state and those they governed as a whole, represented individuality. Individuality exhibited by the person was not encouraged or tolerated because it represented independence. Historically our specie has been waging a long and often violent struggle to raise the value level of the individual to that of the state, to that of the heads of state, to that of those who wield power.

With the onset of this new metaphysical perception, symbiotic panentheism, the value level of the individual rises to the level of the most knowledgeable, powerful, and all present entity we as a specie have been able to conceive, namely – God.

Symbiotic panentheism not only raises the value level of the individual to the level of the divine but explains the dynamics of ‘being’ being ‘Being’, of individuality being a part of singularity/God. Without the understanding regarding the interrelationship of singularity/God/’Being’ and individuality/’being’, without the understanding regarding why individuality is significant to the whole, the argument regarding the legitimacy and importance of the individual simply becomes an interesting dialectic of suppositions.

The point: This work, using reason and rationality as a tool, clearly demonstrates the argument that the individual has importance, clearly demonstrated that the individual verifiable significance.

2. Before the Pre-Socratics – Q2:

What is knowledge?

This isn’t to say that there weren’t advances in knowledge. It was that these advances were the sole domain of the kings and priests of the time. These cultures relied exclusively on custom, priestly revelation, and divine authority for their social cohesion. As such, all knowledge was used to maintain the prevailing view. For example, Egyptian geometry was used to build the great pyramids, while Babylonian astronomy and mathematics were used - exclusively by the priests - to make "magical" predictions. In essence, the prevailing outlook of both the Egyptian and Babylonian empires was that the world was explainable in strictly mythical terms. The gods had created the world, and were responsible for all aspects of it.

S: The question becomes: What is knowledge. Knowledge is the awareness of ‘what is’ with the understanding that ‘what is’ is. Such a statement both is and isn’t circular in nature. Within either a Cartesian model of reality or a non-Cartesian model of reality such a statement is circular in nature and thus nonsensical in understanding reality itself.

This work, however, is not an examination of reality in light of either a Cartesian model of reality or a non-Cartesian model of reality. This work fuses the two, the Cartesian model with the non-Cartesian model. As such, this work establishes a new model, a new metaphysical perception of reality, which combines both the Cartesian model ‘and’ the non-Cartesian model into a single model where the non-Cartesian System is ‘powered’ by a Cartesian system which finds itself located within, finds itself to be an element of the non-Cartesian system.

With the fusion of the two, one can understand that ‘what is’ is the summation of the Whole but because the Whole is void a universal fabric of time and space ‘what is’ can become ‘what could be’ without ever losing its characteristic of being ‘what is’. Again the examination of the topic becomes to complex to address on one page but the details of such dialectics can be found in Volume II of this work.

The point: Knowledge is a noun versus being a verb. Knowledge does not belong to the outdated scientific principles of physics, which characterized the nature matter and energy:

Matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

As we have discovered, both statements are incorrect and have now become the conservation of matter and energy:

The sum total of matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

This work, this new model of reality, clearly demonstrates that the philosophical principle:

Knowledge cannot be created or destroyed.

is as invalid as were the two previously perceived inviolate principles of physics.

The new metaphysical model clearly demonstrates that it is more logical to argue knowledge ‘can’ be created than it is to argue that knowledge ‘cannot’ be created. The new metaphysical model accomplishes something philosophy has not accomplished until now and that is to clearly demonstrates why it is knowledge is ‘something’ which cannot be destroyed while simultaneously being ‘something’ which can be created without interfering with the concept of ‘what is’. (See Tractate 6: The Error of Kant: Resolving the Problem of Universal Ethics.)

3. The Pre-Socratics – Q1:

What is morality?

Western philosophy began with the pre-Socratics. …The pre-Socratics developed a fresh and dynamic way of looking at the world. They turned away from the established theocratic and monarchical structures of their neighbors, and created social structure based upon republican city-states. In these city-states, those who governed did so by the consent of the people.

S: The quote does not appear to be directly related to the concept of morality but in fact the new direction society took immensely impacted our perception regarding what it is we ‘believed’ morality to be. The act of initiating ‘republican city-states’ governing with the consent of the people was an action clearly embracing a new perception of morality.

The establishment of city-states governing by the consent of the people established the concept that each person/individual is significant. Granted the ‘right’ to ‘provide consent’ did not apply to all people universally but the fundamentals of the concept were begun nevertheless. In essence the pre-Socratics initiated the move to extend the significance of a few, the kings and priests, to being individuals in general having significance. The task of extending the concept of significance to all individuals universally had a long way to go but the journey was begun.

The pre-Socratics intuitively understood the concept regarding equality of unique entities of individuality but the pre-Socratics lacked a philosophical model rationalizing such a concept.

It was Aristotle who initiated the concept of metaphysics. Aristotle understood Zeno’s paradoxical concepts, understood the concept of an existence ‘beyond’- meta ‘the physical’ – physics. The concept of a ‘location’ beyond the physical universe may not have been the perception Aristotle grasped but today science, observations, suggests such an existence may in fact be the ‘location’ within which our universe lies.

Should a ‘location’ literally exist ‘outside’ our universe or should the ‘location’ within which our universe exists be of a slightly different perceptual orientation, the concept of the physical not being the ‘greater’ reality still emerges as a rational/reasonable concept.

But what does metaphysics have to do with morality? The foundation/rationality regarding the establishment of morals begins with an understanding of the location of our very existence.

  1. If we exist solely in a physical world then physical hedonism/materialism becomes the foundation of our morality.
  2. If we exist solely in an abstractual world then abstractual hedonism/altruism becomes the foundation of our morality.

The point: We know we exist in a physical world so it would appear that materialism would be the foundation for our moralities.

This work, The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception, however, suggest that we do not exist solely in a physical world nor do we exist solely in an abstractual world. Rather this work suggests we exist in a physical world, which in turn exists solely in an abstractual world.

The result of such a model suggests materialism is the foundation of morality for the short term but in the long term, in terms of the most fundamental of foundations regarding morality, the model suggests altruism is the foundation of morality. Morality is thus steeped in an understanding of the abstractual versus our present perception of morality being steeped in an understanding of the physical.