|
Personhood |
|
A New Paradigm Grounded
upon Neutral Monism |
Send me an Email
|
|
|
Click above -to see more images |
|
 |
The Purpose of these pages is to preview a forth-coming volume:
The New Monadology It came to be
written for two reasons, the one negative and the other positive.
● A sense of increasing
indignation -amounting to outrage- of what is being passed off
by the entrenched intelligentsia as a complete and sufficient
overview of the Larger Reality. The parched landscape of
their Secular Physicalism contemplates a Realiaty
destitute on the many fronts of ontology, metaphysics and
epistemology. It even displays a striking ellipsis on its
home territory -that of the Lex Naturalis.
● More positively, as a systematic working out
its replacement in terms of a long overdue "New Paradigm";
that which I am offering is grounded upon a novel ontology of
Neutral Monism.
You might say
that I was both driven by the stick and drawn by the carrot. Here's a very
brief overview. All of the issues touched on will be explored in depth
within the website.
|
The Stick
Their Physicalist or Positivist doctrine displays a four-fold destitution
-ontological, metaphysical, epistemological and formal. First was my outrage at the way in which the bankruptcy of
both Neo-Darwinism (as a sufficient theory of evolution) and
of the whole Artificial Intelligence movement was either simply being ignored or
disposed of through exercises in 'creative accounting'. Second, and more
fundamental was a sense of the deep inadequacy of the philosophical
weltanschauung presently in place, and within which physics seeks to consolidate
and enlarge its domain in reaching towards the Holy Grail of a "Theory of
Everything". Any such theory that did not allow the inclusion of
categories other than those of physics -e.g. of consciousness and the realm of
Meaning to which it points- would be something closer to a Theory of `Nothing.
Positivism's uncompromizing secularism flies in the face of Gödel's
celebrated theorem. It also raises serious questions about
just where -in a non-Platonist world-view- the corpus of the
lex naturalis is supposed to reside. Further, a Reality
limited to the realm of Existence runs into series logical questions
concerning the relation of Being to Nonbeing and the attribute of
self-necessity. If its foundations are to be made truly
secure, tribute must be paid to some such Principle as Böhme's Ungrund.
Finally, it lacks a sufficiently robust procedure of enquiry. The
'Scientific Method' in which the sole test of truth is empirical interrogation,
leaves the wider domain of enquiry devoid of principles of guidance. The
enterprise must resign itself to a 'softer' logic; its reasoning
"...should not form a
chain which is no stronger than its weakest link, but a cable whose fibres may
be ever so slender, provided they are sufficiently numerous and intimately
connected" (Melvin Rader). There is nothing for it but to be '....half
sure but whole hearted'.
|
|
|
|
The Carrot
My thesis embodies these three
principles.
O It must address and find answers
of some sort to all of the "Great
Questions' of Traditional Philosophy.
O That nothing short of a truly
New Paradigm is called for, that would not be in any sense
an extrapolation of the status quo, but must be a
completely fresh start honouring the traditions of System
Philosophy.
O Finally, that two essential
steps towards fulfilling its mission would be first -an
ontological shift towards a spiritual or neutral monism-
and second, a formal initiative aimed at bringing a 'Metamathematics'
into existence. This complement of its familiar
counterpart is needed to provide the scaffolding That nothing less than a shift
towards a Spiritual or Neutral Monism would satisfy
Inevitably, it is completely out of step with the political
rectitude of the present day. For a start, it is a
sacred as opposed to a secular world-view, though not in a
way involving theism in any of its accepted forms.
I take it for granted that it must be supportive of
a robust, authentic Apocalyptic Eschatology. It is
essential that theodicy dilemma be royally disposed of;
Reality in the large is to be justified. Finally the
human presence (and that of all intelligent monads that
shall ever come to be) must be of abiding and fundamental
significance -as opposed to any kind of after-thought.
My adoption of a Neutral or Spiritual ontology came
naturally, given the monistic philosophical temperament with
which I was born. Yet more than this has been my
progressive discovery of the way in which it seems to have a
built-in 'impedance matching' to the task at hand. My
mission seems to me to have prospered within its embrace.
|
|
The accompanying figure is offered by way of summary
of the Positivist debacle. The first frame presents the modal components or categories -and their rough
interrelationships- That and model of the Larger Reality must sustain, if it is
to qualify for serious consideration. Now let's see what we're being asked
to live with today. The conquest of this territory is a bizarre and
surreal tale. First is a an abandonment of most of most of the territory
in which Reality retreats into the domain of basic Physics and its satellite
disciplines. Then, as though through misgivings over the penury so
imposed, a rebound expansion was executed so that the whole of the abandoned
territory was reoccupied -but by a single modality!! In
this operation of mimesis, physics sought to create doppelganger shadows of the
missing modes (e.g. by 'selfish' genes -in which agency makes a
surreptitious reentrance). As indicated by the rents in the fabric, no
amount of stretching could cover all of the landscape; in these cases the
ellipses were explained away as 'folk' notions; as when consciousness has
been dismissed as an 'illusion'.
Mention
above, of the need to confront all of the 'Great Questions' -particularly that
addressing
eschatology- makes it clear that we are 'into' matters of the sacred and its
relation to the secular. Even in the present day and age, this is almost
always miscast as the 'God question'. As customarily stated, this demands
that we make a choice between the case-hardened alternatives -as to the nature
of the larger Reality. Is it grounded upon a Divine person -holding sway
from eternity to eternity- or is it limited to the secular realm of cosmic
existence -as the currently ensconced scientific positivism demands? This is most unfortunate for the way in which it forecloses upon
most of the envelope of options -you might say that it 'jumps the gun'. As
they stand, I believe that both must be rejected -and surprisingly, upon grounds that are partly demonstrable.
A better point of departure would be a backaway into more abstract queries -e.g.
over the ways in which Transcendence might be conceived, or just how the
distinction between holism and individualism is to be countenanced.
I believe that all we must necessarily start with, is an acceptance of an
eternal realm of Transcendence as the Source of cosmic existence, and that willy
nilly, personhood has a holistic as well as an individualistic aspect. This whole matter is explored in the
ontology
chapter.
To whom is this
website addressed? Certainly not
to the typical professional scientist who finds himself at ease with the
status quo weltanschauung, and who is only interested in those
possibilities of refinement and extrapolations that are consistent with it.
Far too much of the contents of the site is non-peer-review-able. He shall
fond it good only for laughs and perhaps for the glow of rationalistic
self-righteousness that it engenders.
More hopeful is the educated man-in-the-street who still takes the traditional
'Great Questions' of ultimate concern seriously, on their own terms. Perhaps it might catch the eye of the odd high school
student in his senior year. I have in mind someone who is
heading for a career in science but whose commonsense fitness of things hasn't
yet been lobotomized away in the Cabinet of Dr Caligari -that anteroom through
which all are expected to pass in gaining entrance to the Halls of Science
beyond. I shall have much more to say later about this forbidding Karlovian chamber.
I have done my best to avoid a stuffy, pedantic and scholarly style -though much
of the time with scant success. Much of my own stuff bores the hell out
of me, so I can but conjecture what it must do to the reader. I envy
the likes of Arthur Köstler and Raymond Tallis for
the 'contemptuous ease' with which they are able to put a good sentence together.
Perhaps my problem is a malformed left lobe of the cerebral hemisphere;
this might be one of the reasons for my preference for the gestalt of the
diagram over the symbolic articulation of the sentential string. I have
also employed Gif animations here and there. They are relatively crude but
have the great merit of instant on-the-spot execution.
I
have enjoyed the generous hospitality of the National Library of Medicine, here
in Bethesda, Maryland for a very long period of time. I claim that I may
have closed it more times than anyone else in its history. Their courteous
-and latterly long-suffering- staff stand in the best traditions of the library profession; they seem
able to answer any question -whether or not it be any part of their official
NLM commitment.
I am pleased to acknowledge a
grant from the Nawierol Foundation; the
funds turned up just when they were needed
I must also acknowledge the continuing forbearance and support of my
long-suffering family. Many of the hours were of stolen time; they
rightfully belonged to them.
Be assured that this is a living
site. Corrections will be made, refinements added and links established to other domains of my philosophical
overview, and also to other websites addressing themselves to similar issues. I also hope to enjoy the benefits of your own observations reservations and
comments, so I have included some 'feedback' machinery with this end in view.
Number of visitors to this site:
 |
|
Created by Stephen Harrison, December 31
2002
|
 |
|
Site Completely Reorganized December 31 2004 |
|
Previous Revision November 2004 |
|
Copyright
© by Stephen Harrison 2004.
All Rights reserved |
|
