Click tab to close-->

First Metaphysics: Continuing the Heideggerean Project


by Dennis Kane



Abstract: In the following analysis, I will attempt to show that spatiality-as-such is given only by the period of awaiting the resolution of the annihilated temporal universe. Furthermore, I will attempt to show that the physicalistic conception of time-as-worldly-succession -- t -- is nothing other than the primary spatial dimension, from which the secondary spatial dimensions -- x (length), y (width), and z (depth) -- are derived. In other words, temporality-as-such, as a pure enduring, cannot be thought of as having a structured dimensionality, because it is the same essential conception as identity-as-such. Temporality-qua-identity, then, is nothing other than the purely transcendental conception known as: being.

The following is a full-fledged ontological inquiry into the metaphysical foundations for all possible physicalistic ways of thinking, as well as an attempt to implicitly "point the way" towards a wholly experiential, transcendental spiritualism, thereby serving as grounds for all possible authentic ethical activity.




We begin our analysis wih the temporal universe.(1) The temporal universe is an existential state of consciousness, as opposed to the so-called "spatial universe,"(2) which is an epistemological array of facts.(3) The temporal universe can perhaps best be described as the "Zen meditative state," whereby one has the feeling only of an enduring self-sameness.(4) We can gain a conceptual understanding of the temporal universe by thinking of it in terms of the existential mode of I-world unity.(5) This existential analysis, then, will focus upon this conception of the mode of I-world unity -- temporal universality -- via the transcendent consciousness of a purely undifferentiated duration.(6)

It is from the mode of I-world unity that the phrases "I am" and "There is time" are understood as being self-referential. That is, when we think of time-qua-endurance, we are truly thinking of our inner, essential selves: our pre-conceptual identities. And vice versa, when we think of our ownmost identities, we are truly thinking of the essence of time-as-such.(7) Temporality and identity, therefore, are self-referring conceptions. They are the primary meta-concepts from which all other ways of thinking -- conceptualizing -- may be derived. In the same vein, the transcendental mode of I-world unity is the mode from which all other "ways of being" may be understood.(8)

This "First Metaphysics" is an investigation into all possible ways of being through an existential analysis of the temporal universe. In order to do this, the existentially analytical manner of questioning must be fully distinguished from the epistemologically synthetical manner of questioning. An existential analysis is an attempt to discover inner philosophical truth through the investigation of how one's "existential attunements" -- moods -- conditions a pre-conceptual understanding of the "world" in which one finds oneself. An epistemological synthesis, on the other hand, seeks to put together -- synthesize -- a logical ordering of "worldly facts" so that a particular phenomenon may be formally conceptualized. In other words, an existential analysis is an attempt to understand the very "possibilizing ground" of the "physical universe" itself.(9)

An existential analysis is meant to implicitly "point the way" towards spiritual transcendence by way of an elucidation of the ontological "wherefrom" of spatial dimensionality; on the other had, an epistemological synthesis is meant to "lay out a blueprint" for the physical construction of the appearing world through the logical use of spatial dimensionality. The "direction" in which this existential analysis is meant to point is towards the authentically transcendental way of being: the mode of I-world unity. It is only through this truly authentic manner of being that any kind of authentically ethical activity becomes possible.(10)

The mode of I-world unity always only deals in transcendental possibility, and never in epistemological actuality. The existential way of questioning is only concerned with what is possible. On the other hand, the epistemological way of questioning is concerned with what is actual, or, impossible. All actuality is by definition an impossibility. A better way of putting this, perhaps, is that actuality and possibility do not directly oppose one another; rather, possiblity is the existential transcendence of actuality.(11)

Our concern in this existential analysis is to see how all epistemological, actualistic ways of thinking can be derived from the transcendental mode of I-world unity. It is within this mode that temporality is understood as the pure endurance of one's ownmost identity: the I. The phrase, "the I," is simply another way of referring to the temporal universe. In other words, the I, via the temporal universe, is the very origin of all worldliness. To accomplish transcendence, then, the I must "pull" all apparent worldliness back into itself, so "reconstituting" the mode of I-world unity. But what does this mean that the I must "pull" all apparent worldliness back into itself? What must be our sense of the conception "world" so that it may be "pulled" in such a manner?(12)

We must now come to understand what is meant by "world" in our manner of an existentially analytical questioning. In order to do this, we must question how it is that the temporal universe undergoes spatialization. We can conceptualize this spatialization as the annihilation of the mode of I-world unity into the mode of I-and-world disunity. This annihilation, perhaps, can best be understood as basic biological necessity, as in the satisfaction of thirst and hunger, as well as an other "natural" urges. The precise reasons for annihilation, however, are not important to our task at hand. The important thing is that we gain an understanding of the essential nature of the annihilation that takes place within the framework of our existential analysis.(13)

Annihilated, then, the I and the world stand in opposition to one another. As an opposition, the world has become an indeterminate question for the I.(14) It is within this manner of being an indeterminate question that the world can be said to "appear." Whereas the world was once united with the I, it is now a mere appearance for the I. This mode of indeterminate questioning is always an awaiting of the resolution of the degenerative mode of I-and-world disunity. This awaiting is the fundamental existential attunement -- mood -- from which all other ways of questioning may be derived.(15) As an annihilation, an awaiting can be said to "make space" within the absolute fullness that is pure temporality.(16) Annihilated, the temporal universe becomes spatialized into a temporal multi-verse, consisting of a linear succession of "different times."(17)

Between each of these distinct "times," there is said to exist a "space." We can now come to a definition of spatiality-as-such: the period of awaiting the resolution of the annihilated temporal universe. It is from this first, essential spatiality that the conception of dimensionality is understood. It is within this context of spatial-dimensionality that the degenerative temporal multiverse manifests. The time-line that is constructed from our succession of "different times," then, is the primary spatial dimensionality and is known in scientific terminology as t. It is from this primary t-spatiality that the secondary spatialities -- x, y, and z -- can be existentially understood.(18)

Within the degenerative temporal multiverse of t-spatiality, the act of measuring becomes a possibility. In terms of t-spatiality, to measure is to quantify the difference -- distance -- between "time points." The existential way of putting this is: to measure is to quantify the indeterminacy of awaiting -- the space -- between durations of transcendental I-world unity. It is only in relation to this "primary" form of measurement -- the measurement of t-spatiality -- that the "secondary" form of measurement -- the measurement of xyz-spatiality -- becomes a possibility. This is for no other reason than the fact that temporality-as-such is how we come to identify with our very selves, so as to perform the basic tasks of self-preservation.

*         *         *

This existential analysis of the temporal universe is an ontological questioning. Etymologically speaking, ontos is the Greek word for being. Ontology, therefore, is a logical -- step-wise -- inquiry into the meaning of being. Put simply, then, being is the "holding firm" of the temporal universe. In other words, being is the realization of the existentially transcendental mode of I-world unity.(19)

There is, to be sure, a difference between the temporal universe and the temporal multiverse. This difference is known as the ontological difference.(20) The ontological difference is the major modal difference, meaning that it is the primary difference between all possible ways of being. There is only one ontological difference: that being the difference between the transcendental mode of I-world unity and the degenerative mode of I-and-world dis-unity.

It is only within the temporal multiverse that the many secondary differences become manifest. These differences are known as ontic differences, meaning the differences between the many worldly appearances. These ontic differences, then, are the minor modal differences. While there is only one ontological difference, there are infinitely many ontic differences. The questioning of the ontological difference has the character of transcendental spiritualism whereas the questionings of the ontic differences have the character of dialectical physicalism.(21) To question ontologically is to put oneself on the way towards spiritual transcendence, so than authentic ethical activity becomes a possibility. To question ontically is to quantify -- lay out a blueprint for -- the world as it appears to the I, via the degenerative temporal multiverse.

It is from the temporal multiverse that the logos arises. The logos is the entire set of words, symbols, and images that are used to re-present the world as it appears to the I. The use of the logos in this way is known as logic. To think "logically" is simply to question ontically. It is in this logical manner of questioning that the scientific paradigm is understood. Science is always only an ontic questioning: a questioning of the many minor differences between appearances.(22) Spirituality, however, is always an ontological questioning: a questioning of the single major difference between being and worldly-appearance-as-such.(23)

The task of the authentic existential project, then, is to "repair" the degenerative conception of time-as-worldly-succession -- the temporal multiverse -- back into the transcendental conception of time-as-I-endurance -- the temporal universe.(24) This kind of "reparation" is one of the major tasks of the Eastern philosophical tradition, by way of meditation, yogic exercises, riddles, and allegorical lessons.(25) It is not my purpose, however, to advocate for any particular way to spiritual transcendence above any others. My purpose is simply to say, "The truth is, unity transcends multiplicity."

*         *         *

This existential analysis has attempted to reveal the problem with all previous "metaphysical theories": the "failure" of equating time with the simple, linear successiveness of the temporal multiverse, rather than with the enduring permanence of the temporal universe. The point of this existential analysis has been to outline a strict metaphysical construct that will clear up any confusion caused by all previous attempts at such. This philosophy was wholly inspired by my reading of the book Being and Time by the German philosopher, Martin Heidegger. Particularly, Heidegger's expositions of being-in-the-world, Da-sein (there-being), worldliness, and temporality were a major help towards my taking the "existential leap" in the manner of my philosophical questioning.

It is from there tiny conceptual nuggets that my mind started to go off on tangents that no one else (that I know of) ever has. The basic outline of this metaphysical system was created during an "existential odyssey," in which I wandered the coast of California, in a completely homeless state, from San Diego to San Francisco. I took city and Greyhound buses to get from place to place, and I simply allowed my mind to wander wherever it wanted. The entire journey lasted just under three weeks, but it was in the first nine of those days that I kept an existential diary, whereby I combined my immediate experiences with my philosophical thoughts.



Footnotes

1. The importance of this conception cannot be overstated: it is at the intersection between all possible "forms" of science and spirituality. The concept of the temporal universe came to me on September 15, 2005, after I had used the term "the I-world unity" for well over a year to describe the same essential idea. I now realize the crucial importance in the exact phrasings that one uses in the pursuit of philosophical clarity. After all, no matter how much one wants to artificially synthesize a "unity" by way of a simple dash (-) between words, this kind of artificiality simply will not "hold water" in the long run. The phrase, temporal universe, however, is both poetically sublime and philosophically elegant. It can basically be understood as the world as it is experienced in those fleeting moments of transcendental consciousness: there is no sense of need or want. It is from this "highest" existential mode that the a priori conception of spatiality can be derived.

2. I should explicate further why I refer to the "spatial universe" as "so-called." In brief, spatiality and universality are necessary antonyms. The concept of spatiality-as-such is existentially grounded in the conception of "multiversality." In other words, there can only truly be a temporal universe. Therefore, our "spatial universe" would more appropriately be called xyz-spatiality: this is a physical-logical construct. Of course, all of this presupposes that we take seriously the 'uni-' prefix of the word universe, signifying an undifferentiable whole.

3. A logical ordering. Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is basically a full accounting of what I am trying to say here.

4. I am attempting to describe what Kant might have meant by the transcendental unity of apperception. You could also call this meditative state the "singularity of consciousness," or the absolute-I. Although I don't like the terminology very much, one could perhaps use the phrase: pre-reflective ego. I, however, am partial to the simple phrase: the I.

5. As an existential mode, the I-world unity must not be confused with any sort of physicality. I use the term "world" in the same sense of Heidegger's explications of being-in-the-world and thrownness (in Being and Time, tr. Stambaugh).

6. "A purely undifferentiated duration": This is similar to Bergson's conception of durée. In other words, when we are not busy "counting time," -- when we aren't concerned with clocks or calendars -- then time "feels" like an essential "smoothness." This essential smoothness -- as in no "gaps" -- can be thought of as an "infinite density." Our common, physicalistic conception of infinite density is of a "point mass" that "pulls" all surrounding matter back into itself. This conception of an "infinite density that pulls" will come up later in the essay when we are tasked with transcending all worldly appearances.

7. I fully understand how people might be resistant in equating the phrases "I am" and "There is time." This is entirely due to the failure of "adding in" worldly conceptions to our notions of our essential identities and temporality-as-such. You must perform a complete abstraction of both of the conceptions in order to get them to "jibe" with one another. This is indeed a mind-bending, and some might say mentally painful, thing to do. If one cannot "withstand" the level of abstraction that is required here, then the rest of the analysis will make precisely no sense... consider this to be a challenge!

8. All of this is to say that the temporal universe is the "origin" of all possible ways of thinking and being. Time, identity, and the mode of I-world unity are all simply different ways to "understand" what the temporal universe essentially is.

9. An epistemological synthesis is a scientific questioning. It seeks to "measure" the multiplicity of appearances in the "phenomenal universe" and come to a formal understanding of their relationships. An existential analysis seeks to destructure the very being that is "performing" all of this scientific activity in order to discover the a priori grounding of any possible kind of scientific understanding at all.

10. This may seem like an overly bold set of claims. I am essentially saying that an understanding of spatiality-as-such is enough "ammunition" to lead an ethical life. The key here is to realize that the primary "spatiality" that must be dealt with is the common conception of time as apparent worldly successiveness: the temporal multiverse. In other words, the temporal multiverse must be transcended so as to repair the mode of I-and-world disunity back into the mode of I-world unity. I is only within this authentically transcendental attunement that authentic ethical activity becomes possible. The important thing here is authenticity. If one is not is the way of transcendental authenticity, then any kind of authentically ethical activity is not possible.

11. Here, I am intentionally staying away from the catch-words: reality and objectivity. The state of transcendence is always the highest possibility of the "human condition." In other words, the conception of state-hood (or: stage, level) itself must be avoided. State-hood denotes a kind a atemporal staticness, similar to Plato's Ideas. State-hood is likewise how scientists are able to logically represent physical processes (e.g. at t=1s, the velocity is 3.4 m/s, and at t=2s, the velocity is 4.6 m/s, and so on). Statehood is therefore a product of the temporal multiverse whereby the logos is used to re-present the world as it appears to the I. Any kind of "state" is by definition impossible, and I define this impossibility as actuality.

12. Here, I am about to attempt to set up the conception of "worldliness" as essentially temporal multiversality, as in t-spatiality. This kind of past-present-future temporality is how we come to existentially understand the common conception of spatial "worldliness." We can then bring the world back into to I by "pulling" the past and the future into the present. We can call this, "living in th moment" or "living in the now," and is the essence of the temporal universe. This footnote won't make sense unless you've already read the entire essay!

13. I can't stress enough how unimportant are the "actual" reasons for the annihilation of the temporal universe. We can call it animal necessity as much as we can call it "fallenness," or even "original sin." However you want to put it, what is essentially happening is that the mode of I-world unity is being "ripped apart" into the mode of I-and-world disunity (duality). Within this degenerative state, we are always in the "existential mood" of awaiting the resolution of the annihilated I-world unity. We are in a "state of suspense." The world is an indeterminate question for the I.

14. My sense of the word "appearance" is the same as "physical sensation." In other words, I am not simply making reference to the visual sensation. In this sense, a wind gust can "appear" cool, the stove-top can "appear" hot, the music can "appear" loud, the odor can "appear" pleasant, and the food can "appear" salty. Also, there "appears" to be pleasure and pain. This is a purposeful attempt to rid metaphysics of the "visual bias" that everywhere infiltrates it, as in the saying, "I have in mind the idea of a perfect circle." I believe this kind of statement is utterly unphilosophical and only leads to a hopeless state of confusion.

15. My primary "fallen" existential state is: awaiting the resolution of the annihilated temporal universe. To await is to have one's very being "thrown into question." One way of putting this is: the I (the absolute-I) is "dualized" into this-I and that-I. Each of these degenerate "I's" are essentially "based" upon the world as it appears. It is in this way that the I is able to question what it essentially is. As long as the I is simply only quesitoning based upon the myriad of worldly appearances, however, it is not questioning authentically, and authentic ethical activity is not possible. The I, then, must understand how to question authentically, in terms of questioning ontologically.

16. This just means that the I that is presently awaiting the resolution of the I-and-world disunity is "held in suspense" between a remembered temporal universe and an expected one. This requires that we "always already" (a priorally) have an existential conception of what the temporal universe -- as the mode of I-world unity -- essentially is. We truly cannot ever forget this conception, because to do so would mean that we can no longer "grasp" that we are always essentially "identical with" ourselves, rendering us wholly incapable of taking any kind of self-presevational activity whatsoever.

17. Within each "time point," we tend to define our "self identities" in terms of the worldly appearances that surround us at each given particular "time." Of course, each so-called "point in time" only retains its "identity" because it is itself a temporal universe, meaning that it is a pure, smooth duration of absolute experiential "density." Furthermore, when I use the term, temporal multiverse, I am not essentially referring to a collection of particular "points in time," as in the "birth point," the "death point," or any other such notion. I simply mean that the I is existentially "held between" a remembered temporal universe and an expected one. This "holding between" is precisely the mode of being that awaits the "re-unification" of the temporal multiverse "back into" the temporal universe. This "holding between that awaits" effectively grounds the a priori notion of spatiality-as-such that further serves as grounds for all forms of "structured dimensionality." It is this possibility of structuralism that permits something like a "linear temporal span" to actively "hold its form."

18. This is hitting upon the essential problem with all previous metaphysical constructs. The concept of "space" had never previously been explicitly formulated as a "problem." A pre-conceptual understanding of "world space" had always been taken as axiomatically given. I believe this is simply a relic of the "visual bias" that everywhere taints authentic philosophical thought. We like to think that we are automatically "intuiting space" from the visual experience. However, we are only ever truly seeing a flat plane of "color-splotches." It is only through continued practice with this "place of sight" that we are able to intuit the "spatial relationships" of these splotches. But experiential intuitions of these kinds of relationships are in no way a priori intuitions of spatiality-as-such. When we are forced to define space, the only thing we can say is that it is a nothingness, or an absence. So the ultimate question of metaphysics is : how is it that we can have any kind of an a priori intuition of spatiality-as-such? How is it that we can come to "know" nothing? Or, how can we come to understand "thingness" itself if it is to be "annihilated" and rendered into no-thingness? This is where the critical importance of the temporal universe is revealed. The temporal universe, as a transcendentally experienced fullness, is thingness-as-such. And when the temporal universe is annihilated, it is rendered into the temporal multiverse. The temporal multiverse -- which is given by the existential mode of awaiting the resolution of the I-and-world disunity -- is that which "gives birth" to the a priori conception of spatiality-as-such. Our first spatiality that we have access to, then, is temporal-spatiality (t-spatiality), and this a priori conception is what is always "used" whe we say that we have an understanding of what space-as-such is. In other words, we can always easily say that we "know" what Cartesian, xyz-spatiality (world space) essentially is, but we all know that saying doesn't necessarily make it so!

19. Here, I am attempting to provide a straightforward answer to Heidegger's question, "What is being?" in Being and Time. It may seem to be an all too simple answer to an otherwise impossible to fathom question. This supposedly "simple answer," however, relies entirely upon the conceptual grasping of the temporal universe and how it annihilates into the temporal multiverse, giving rise to the a priori understanding of spatiality-as-such. If any of these concepts are not fully grasped, then the answer to the question concerning being is rendered entirely superficial: it becomes a simple "creed" instead of an authentic existential questioning that allows for the possibility of spiritual transcendence and therefore of authentically ethical activity.

20. Heidegger stated that the ontological difference is the difference between being and beings (at least, it was translated as such). I believe that this is a hopelessly confused way of putting things. My metaphysical construct has absolutely no place for the word: beings. All this word does is "substantialize" the word, being, and this physicality will always rub off on the word, being, when the ontological question is formulated as the difference between being and beings. Instead of the word, beings, then, I use the conception of the multiplicity of appearances that constitute the world as it appears to the I, within the temporal multiverse. This conception of the word, beings, allows us to focus in the purely transcendental character of being.

21. Here we can see a relationship setting up between the spiritual and the physical vocations. This can easily denigrate into a question that asks, "Which is better: religion or science?". Besides the fact that I am in no way speaking to particular "religions" or "sciences," this kind of crude question wholly misses the point. There is not an oppositional, either/or relationship between spiritualism and physicalism. There is, rather, a transcendental relationship between the two. The transcendence of physicality into spirituality is always the essential freedom of the I. In other words, transcendence is no one's business, but the business of the I, alone.

22. These definitions of logos and logic are entirely my own. I am defining them in this way to get rid of all the "metaphysical baggage" that they carry. It seems that so many "logicians" feel that they are able to determine "ontological status" through the simple algebraic manipulation of words and symbols. Some believe that theoretical physicists are doing the business of determining the "ultimate nature of reality," and are thereby on the way to determining a so-called "Unified Theory of Everything." This becomes manifestly untrue if one understands that the physicists have precisely no understanding that spatiality is ultimately wholly derivative of temporality-qua-identity. Their simple, unquestioned use of xyzt-spatiality (spacetime) shows that they are on the entirely wrong end of the spectrum in the question concerning unity. In other words, one cannot ever hope to "cure" the fundamental dis-unity of spatiality (after all, space is disunity) through a manner of questioning that relies entirely upon the unquestioned assumption that the logical construct given by xyzt-spatiality is fundamentally a priori.

23. A transcendentally existential questioning is the only possible way in which to question ontologically. All physicalistic investigations are necessarily ontic, or, wholly derivative to the "true" task of the I.

24. This is the final "payoff" of my previous references to the I having to "pull" all worldly appearances back into itself. This can only be done be "collecting" all thoughts of the past and the future into the now that goes nowhere, but always remains. The now that always remains is the existential mode of I-world unity: the temporal universe.

25. A major philosophical motivation for me has been to "build a bridge" to the spirituality of the East by way of the language of the West. I feel, by describing the existential "wherefrom" of spatiality-as-such, that I have accomplished this task like no one else in history. I would not compare myself to historical philosophers like Plato, Descartes, and Kant, however. I fully realize that I have inherited a far richer language due to the work of those who preceded me, not to mention my "unfair advantage" of the ability to acquire information at the push of a button. Therefore, I should rather say that I only could have accomplished what I have with the explicit help of those who came before me. My work is their work. We are all standing on the shoulders of giants.





Copyright © 2005-2008
Dennis H. Kane
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1