Kirjahaku

Part I: Creating the paradox of a Perfect System 1. Introduction This tractate, Tractate 5: Leibniz and Theodicy, appears relatively unimportant when compared to the voluminous material found within the previous tractates. One must not forget, however, that we are dealing with abstractual concepts... ... It is theodicy we must examine in order to understand how we are to redirect the 'masquerading metaphysician' back to becoming a purist, a legitimate metaphysician as opposed to acting within an ontologist masquerading as a metaphysician. It is Leibniz who introduced the concept of 'perfection' and 'imperfection' and labeled such a concept with a unique term of its own, theodicy... ...In terms of the shortness of the tractate, there is no doubt the tractate is 'shorter. The concepts with which the work, The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception, deals are abstractual in nature and as such 'perfection' and 'imperfection' are found to be, metaphysically speaking, non-relativistic in nature. Should one feel uncomfortable with the concept of puristic non-relativistic values of abstraction, one may find comfort in reexamining the diagram introducing this tractate. Upon doing so, admirers of Leibniz may find comfort in observing that although the tractate regarding Leibniz may be 'shorter' than the other tractates, Leibniz and the concept with which he dealt take up more space within the diagram and require the listing of his name more frequently than any other philosopher. In addition, the diagram credits Leibniz with having established the first thought of there acting within a distinctly separate and independent 'location' existing 'isolated from' the physical. So much for the 'shortness' of the Leibniz' tractate, but what of the emotional approach versus the less objective approach found within the tractate itself as 'compared' to the first four tractates? Leibniz introduced a very emotional concept, the concept of humanity, the concept of all forms of abstractual knowing acting within 'imperfect' versus simply the individual in the puristic sense of the word. Such personal re-characterization of our very essence deserves its own unique emotional response. Leibniz, through his work, re-characterizes our, humanity's, actions as being 'imperfect'. Leibniz creates the concept of imperfection becoming a location of the lack of 'perfect quality' through the emergence of a new location. As the new location emerges, its characteristic becomes defined: Perfection exists. As such the concept of 'omni...' spreads to action as well as knowledge, power, and presence. Through Leibniz, 'Separation through exclusion' becomes a necessity. And where will examining Leibniz and theodicy take us? It will take us to the metaphysician who perhaps was the first philosopher since Leibniz to discard the fa ade of being 'an ontologist working in the guise of a metaphysician'. It will take us to the work of Immanuel Kant himself. Leibniz attempted to create a term to resolve what he considered to be a paradox underscoring religious and philosophical thought. Theodicy, a term introduced by Leibniz to characterize the topic of God's government of the world in relation to the nature of man. The problem is the justification of God's goodness and justice in view of the evil in the world. He attempted to compartmentalize the contradictory discussion regarding the concept of a 'perfect' God being 'perfectly good' while allowing 'evil' to exist, while allowing evil to take place, while allowing evil to be created 'within' It's personal creation which 'lesser' 'beings' call 'the universe'. But Leibniz failed to recognize that as soon as he accepted the first three forms of 'omni-', omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, than the fourth form, omnibenevolence, became an invalid concern to both religion and philosophy.

'Hegel's Theory... is a philosophical summit ' So it is 'a' summit appears to have been reached only for us to find, having attained such a summit, a new summit awaits beyond the one we just laboriously conquered. The climb towards Hegel's summit began with 'nothingness' and revealed stunning paradoxes great metaphysical thinkers such as Zeno, Aristotle, Boethius, Copernicus, Leibniz, Kant, and Hegel himself attempted but failed to resolve. The gallant attempts put forward by these great thinkers led to metaphysical perceptions which temporarily satisfied segments of our species but never rose to the level of consensus required of a universal metaphysical model. A universal metaphysical model answers, at a minimum, three metaphysical questions: Where am I? What am I? And, Why do I exist? From such a model the term 'I' finds itself, naturally and with an ease of complete continuity, capable of being rationally replaceable with the terms: 'you', 'we', 'you and I together', 'humanity', 'life', 'the earth', 'the solar system', 'the galaxy', 'other life forms within the universe', 'all life forms within the universe', 'the universe', 'all universes'. ... Hegel is no different just because we come to 'a' summit. There is always a summit to follow each summit we conquer. To state: 'Hegel's Theory... is a philosophical summit.' is not to imply there are no other summits awaiting us. Before we can begin our climb to the next summit, we need to understand the new perception Hegel displayed for us. It is Hegel's metaphysical system, which raises the question regarding the need of 'a creator of the universe', the need of' 'a primal cause', the need of 'a first Cause'. ...What then of 'God' being 1st truth? ... Hegel's system would suggest there is no 'need' for God, no 'need' for primal cause, no 'need' for 1st cause to exists since the universe would appear to be timeless, would appear to have 'always' been. The problem becomes the operative word, 'universe', for everything we observe, believe, or reason suggests timelessness is not simply a perceptual option. The most obvious yet simultaneously obscure result is that a 'second' location emerges as 'the' solution to the problem. In essence, Hegel's system reinforced what Zeno, Aristotle, Boethius, Copernicus, Leibniz, and Kant had already reinforced one with the other. This is not to say Hegel's system lacked new insights for our species. ... It is the ideas and actions identified within this quote from Rockmore, which need addressing if we are to resolve the issues Hegel brings metaphysics. It is the concept of the universe not needing a 'creator' and yet finding an acceptable significance for 'God' which needs to be addressed and resolved before we can fully appreciate what it is Hegel may have stumbled upon: 1.The universe had no 'beginning' from which it evolved. 2.The universe is timeless and has no 1st cause. The problem seems paradoxically irresolvable in terms of either a Cartesian system or a non-Cartesian system. It is for this very reason the new metaphysical model presented in this tractate may well be 'the' solution to the problem. The metaphysical model presented is not one of Cartesianism nor one of non-Cartesianism but rather the metaphysical system being presented is one of a non-Cartesian system 'powered' by a Cartesian system located 'within' the a non-Cartesian system using the process of 'separation' through 'inclusion' versus 'separation' through 'exclusion'. The questions then become: What is a non-Cartesian system and what is a Cartesian system and how can the two exist one 'within' the other? Why is the first located 'within' the second rather than the second located 'within' the first? In fact why is either located 'within' as opposed to being located independently one from the other and separated through the process of exclusion?

The new metaphysical system: a.An open passive system powered by a closed active system wherein the whole of the closed system is itself passive and the whole of the open system is active. b.An open active system 'containing' a totally independent closed passive system wherein elements of the open active system found 'within' the closed passive system are generated independent of the open active system As complicated as such statements may appear, the system itself is actually quite simple: (Simple Diagram of System Composed of Three Elements: The Whole, The Physical Universe, The Individual) The Aristotelian metaphysical system evolved in the 1st millennium. The Kant/Hegel metaphysical system evolved in the 2nd millennium. Eventually a new all-encompassing metaphysical system will evolve in the 3rd millennium. The development of the metaphysical system of the 1st millennium accompanied us as our species explored the concept of geographical 'rights'. The development of the metaphysical system of the 2nd millennium accompanied us as our species explored the concept of global 'rights'. A new metaphysical perception needs to emerge which will dominate our expansion into the vast depths of the universe. Such a system will by necessity need to match our advances in both technology and extraterrestrial cultural intrusions and intrusiveness. If such a metaphysical system does not emerge, history will repeat itself. The time periods involving the exploration of the globe and the initial explorations of the Americas, Africa, and the East by the West lead to horrific human and environmental trauma supported by perceptions of geographic 'rights'. This trauma was not unique to Western action. The 'inhumanity' imposed upon individuals was generated by both the East and the West. Human geographical 'rights' are in the process of conceding their status to global 'rights.' Such 'rights' will have no less a negative impact upon the frontiers of the universe than geographical 'rights' had upon the frontiers of our planet. How do we avoid repeating our species past negative acts? We can do so by establishing a universal philosophy based upon a foundation of new metaphysical thought. The result is the development of a foundation for action derived from rational thought rather than depending upon a foundation for action derived from examination of past actions steeped in horrific negativity. How is one to accomplish such a monumental 'leap' in human behavior? One must identify the foundation of action which created the past history of human negativity and modify the foundation. And what is the foundation of human behavior which initiates human action? The foundation for human behavior is metaphysical thought, metaphysical perception. We are what we think we are. We are a species which acts based upon what it rationally perceives itself to be, believes itself to be, sees itself to be. In short we are what philosophy, religion, and science defines us to be. If such is the case, then what is it that science, religion, and philosophy have been debating for the last twenty-five hundred years? Religion, science, and philosophy have been debating the legitimacy of Cartesianism versus non-Cartesianism. Simplified the statement becomes: Which is correct, monism or dualism? The philosophical debate: Either awareness of awareness, intentionality, knowing is an innate characteristic of the physical or it is not. The religious debate: Either there is a soul or there is not. The scientific debate: Either awareness, consciousness is an innate characteristic of the physical or it is not.

Panentheism is the only cosmological and ontological system capable of demonstrating the interrelationship between the physical an the nonphysical. Zeno is where the perception of physical distance split from abstract distance, where the physical split from the Eternal. Zeno, and for that matter philosophers throughout the past two thousand five hundred years, were not aware of what it was they were on the verge of understanding. The understanding eluding philosophers was not to reveal itself until after Einstein and his concept of 'relative' time was verbalized. Even then, even with the concept of 'relative' time being verbalized, the potential understanding regarding the relationship of the individual, God, and 'acting within' was not to be immediately understood. And why would understanding the relationship of the individual, God, and 'acting within' not be understood when Einstein revealed the concept of relative time? It was not understood because philosophers had proclaimed the demise of Metaphysics and having done so, buried Metaphysics deep within the most inaccessible realms of the philosophical subconscious. As such, the tool needed to understand the concept of individuality/the individual, the whole/God, and action, process/reality/being (vb) was to languish until the time when Metaphysics was once again brought forth from the dark sub-sub conscious realm of philosophy. After all Metaphysics is by its most primal definition, the understanding of fundamental, universal, truths and their interrelationship in the active sense of their coexisting as opposed to the previously perceived passive sense of their coexisting. And where does all this 'the individual', God, the universe, the demise of Metaphysics, Metaphysics resurrection, incrementalism, abstract functionality, concrete functionality, ad infinitum begin? It begins with Zeno because Zeno expressed a good point from which we can begin the discussion. Zeno verbalized the long and arduous task of understanding the development regarding the technicality of a radically new metaphysical perception. Zeno initiated a discussion regarding the multiplicity of distance vs. the seamlessness of distance, which, after twenty-five hundred years of philosophical debate, has lead us to the development of a new metaphysical perception. It was Zeno who established an excellent beginning point from which the most primal understanding of the universe, our home, could begin. It is through the paradoxes of Zeno that we were to learn the difference between the abstract and the physical, the concrete. So who is this solitary man standing at this point we call a beginning rather than the beginning of the journey traveled by this thing we call humanity, this thing we call 'a' human? There were many Zeno's in Greek history. This Zeno is Zeno of Elea. This man is like you and I, a simple human with a simple idea which when added to ideas, perceptions, emerging over the next twenty-five hundred years would create a metaphysical picture capable of answering three questions which were to trouble our species since time began: 'Where am I' 'What am I' And, 'Why do I exist'

Panentheism is a model of reality capable of resolving the conflicting concepts of free will and divine foreknowledge. Free will confined within the boundaries of determinism is simply an illusion of free will. 'There can be little question that Boethius, more than any other philosophical author, helped the great Schoolmen to retain a general comprehensive view of the world as a whole, in spite of the distractions of their minute inquiries. ' Boethius presented humanity with a model of a metaphysical system, which led to an understanding regarding how it is men retain free will within the parameters of an all-knowing entity. Boethius' metaphysical system describes an omniscient God and It's interrelationship to free will. Examination of Boethius' metaphysical system becomes the point of the first part of this tractate. The second part of this tractate is an examination of a means by which we can embrace such a system while freeing ourselves of the contradiction divine foreknowledge, determinism, pre-destination, or predestination impose upon the very concept of 'free' will. Paradoxically, the process of freeing ourselves of the confines of determinism is accomplished through a process of removing free will from the realm of determinism and then reinserting free will back into determinism through a process of 'separation through inclusion' versus 'separation through exclusion'. The exploration of 'separation through inclusion' versus 'separation through exclusion' is itself fully explored in Tractate 8: Russell. Although the in depth understanding regarding the concept of 'separation through inclusion' must wait for the Russell Tractate, we will initiate the understanding regarding such a concept within this tractate. Boethius argued we must accept free will as being recessive, submissive to divine foreknowledge, determinism, pre-destination, and predestination. Now if submissive independence is not an error, what is? Is Boethius to blame for our having been unable to resolve the paradox regarding free will and divine foreknowledge? The answer is no. We are now the ones responsible for not resolving the issue regarding the paradox of the simultaneous independent existence of free will and determinism. Philosophers have expanded our understanding of abstraction and scientists have expanded our understanding of the physical. Now it is up to us to merge the two sets of knowledge. We have the knowledge. Therefore, it is up to present day metaphysicians to assemble these pieces of the puzzle and create a new metaphysical model. An alternative metaphysical perception, metaphysical model, to Boethius' metaphysical perception exists and is presented within this tractate. The problem is to gain the attention of religion, philosophy, and science, all of whom have rejected the very validity of metaphysics itself. With this in mind, let's examine what it was Boethius laid out for us as a metaphysical perception. Let us then proceed to examine why this metaphysical system was accepted as a logical argument. We will then examine why such a metaphysical model advanced intact through history followed by an examination as to why it is we have not yet discarded this metaphysical system. Finally, let us examine why it is we can now file Boethius' system away as an interesting perception found within the annals of philosophical history as opposed to its status of being an unresolved perplexing paradox of philosophical perception.

Panentheism is an ontological system capable of compassionately resolving the issue of theodicy or what generically is termed as omni-benevolence. Leibniz and Theodicy, appears relatively unimportant when compared to the voluminous material found within the previous tractates. One must not forget, however, that we are dealing with abstractual concepts within the complete work of The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception of which this tractate is an element. Abstractual concepts are not measured in terms of physical dimensions and thus cannot be compared one to another in our customary fashion. Abstractual concepts just are and as such abstractual concepts have not only no relative value of physical size one to the other but have no relative value of importance one to the other. Why then examine the concept of Theodicy which was introduced so eloquently by Leibniz rather than other 'more important' aspects of Leibniz' work? There it is again, the almost inescapable desire to place relative value upon one idea as opposed to another. So again we will ask the question but remove the concept of 'relative value' from the question: Why then examine the concept of Theodicy? The concept of theodicy, as introduced by Leibniz, created a beacon which metaphysicians felt obliged to follow as they worked throughout the following centuries. Metaphysicians, by embracing the concept that 'perfection' as defined by ontologists, in truth lost their way and simply perceived themselves to be metaphysicians when in actuality they became ontologists masquerading as metaphysicians. Such 'metaphysicians' examined the personality of 'God' versus the fundamental characteristics of 'the whole' system 'within' which we, elements of perceptual knowing, find ourselves to exist. Metaphysics does not deal with the personality of the whole but rather metaphysics deals with the basics, with what is. Ontology deals with the abstractual personality of the whole, which emerges from the existence of the whole itself. So for a third time: Why then examine the concept of Theodicy? ...

It is panentheism which provides the hope of developing a universal ethic which stretches from one end of our galaxy to the other. Universal ethics are ethics which apply to more than just an individual, a nation, a planet, a solar system or a galaxy. Universal ethics apply throughout the whole of a universe. What then are we to examine within this Volume 10: Kant and the Void of Space and Time? We are to examine space and time, the void of space and time, passive observation, active observation. It is this exploration which will lead us the the ever elusive development of what Kant calls his Categorical Imperatives or more generically, Universal Ethics. In spite of the pronouncements of philosophers to follow Kant, meta-physics, is not dead. Meta-physics has just been set aside while we await a new metaphysical system. Kant said we have no choice but to establish a more comprehensive metaphysical system before we relegate his system to the archives of ancient history. Such then becomes the task of this dialectic for it is the very purpose of this work, The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception, to establish the rationality regarding a new metaphysical model. As we shall see, however, the task of 'replacing' Kant's system is not to be attempted through the process of destroying Kant metaphysical model but rather the new model is established through the process of fusing Aristotle's, Kant's, and Hegel's model all into one metaphysical model. Kant's metaphysical system presented many contradictions. Before we can replace Kant's system we must first examine Kant's system to, as Wittgenstein said: '... get a clear view of the state of ... affairs before the contradiction is resolved It is both aspects, examination and replacement, which is the focus of this volume. Kant embraced the concept of an Aristotelian Cartesian system. A Cartesian system is one built upon 'a' 'foundation'. Kant, therefore, believed a metaphysical system must have 'a' first principle. b The brief description of Kant's system, leads us to Kant's dilemma. Before we delve into the substance of this volume however, a few additional words would be appropriate regarding the direction this volume is to take. This volume is not to be a critique of Kant's work; rather this volume is an examination followed by an expansion of two of Kant's positions. First: The universe evolves as our thoughts evolve. Second: The concept of a system is critical to metaphysics. Regarding the first concept: The perception, the universe evolves as our thoughts evolve, provides the rationale as to why our understanding of the 'Greater' picture is so important. The concept that the universe evolves as our thoughts evolve implies we actively 'form' what 'will be' as opposed to the past Aristotelian perception that we are merely observers of 'what is'. Regarding the second concept: Kant was the first to propose such an upside down concept as the universe itself evolving as our thoughts evolved. Kant turned metaphysics and thus philosophy on its head just as Copernicus turned cosmology and thus science on its head. Kant was the first metaphysician to step beyond the perceptual metaphysical perception of the day. Kant was able to step beyond the perception of the day regarding the observer passively observing. Kant, however, was unable to step beyond the perception of the day regarding the existence of an Aristotelian closed system. Such conflicting positions generated unwieldy metaphysical contradictions. Kant innovated a perception incapable of being 'confined' within an Aristotelian closed system and thus found himself incapable of finding both first truth and his dearly sought categorical imperative. It is these two concepts, first truth and categorical imperatives, that this volume will examine and with the help of Hegelian concepts attempt to resolve.