A word of explanation before the actual text. Besides never setting out to write something like this, I think it is at best good; likely not too bad. Perhaps it is horrible, but all these determinations I leave to others. I wrote it because I felt there was nothing else to be done, and it is the best I can do at the moment.
So what did I write? The best way to describe the Prologue is to make a comparison to Descartes Cogito. I set out the barest basics for what I believe can be used as a foundation for knowledge and inquiry, and for what exists in general. And all in less than a page…
1 Prologue: Insanity
If am insane, then I have a problem. If I believe that I am insane, then there is nothing to be done because I am irreparably damaged and won’t be able to learn or understand anything.
I do not believe myself insane.
If I affirm the previous sentence then I may infer a few things:
- Descriptions and words exist, else I wouldn’t have been able to make the above statement; I wrote it.
- Commitments exist, else I wouldn’t have been able to affirm the above statement; I’m committed to it.
- Something other than words, descriptions and commitments exist, else I wouldn’t have had anything to describe or commit to.
These three existential statements are inferred from affirming that I am not insane. So if you say you are not insane then you can also be said to believe in commitments, descriptions, and other objects.
Being irreparably damaged is the same as being insane; if damaged you’re incapable of understanding what others can understand. Therefore if you deny that you are insane then you deny that you are damaged.
Anyone who asserts that they are not damaged, not insane, is committed to an ontology that everyone who is sane will understand.
If it were false, i.e. you claim you are not insane and you are committed to an ontology that some who are sane cannot understand, then those who you say cannot understand are damaged in some way becaues they cannot understand but are also not insane. However, claiming that someone is incapable of understanding but not insane is nonsense.
Therefore there is no preferential ontological perspective: ontology is relative to the sane. All sane people are equal in the sense that they can understand each other, are reasonable, when researching the kinds of things that exist. This is not to say that there won’t be disagreements or that understanding will not take time and effort, but that there is no third option of being niether sane nor insane. Either you understand and can be understood or you do not and cannot. and this space between sanity and insanity will be dealt with in the section on preterphysics.
File translated from TEX by TTH, version 3.79. On 25 Oct 2008, 14:43.
Digg it ¨ del.icio.us ¨ ¨ Email ¨ Google ¨ reddit ¨ StumbleUpon