Daniel J. Shepard

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.

'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?

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.