Moving from Consciousness to Ontology

This is a (sort of) continuation to last week’s post, Consciousness. I actually wrote the below article defining objects prior to writing the article on consciousness, however it was not until after clarifying my ideas on consciousness that I was able to move successfully to ontological methodology, something presupposed in the article on objects. A bit muddled, I know, but in the end I think it ended up working out. Now I just have to figure out where to go from here, I have been itching to write a new article the past few days but can’t seem to settle on the “correct” next step. Anyway, without further ado, here are my thoughts on objects and how they are formed. I know this may be boring for some, but hopefully it will at least get someone thinking.

Objects

Determining what actually is, or what objects in the world may be posited as existing, is one of the daunting tasks of metaphysics. However the problem is actually relatively simplistic. The problem arises either out of the assumption that there can be* a priori* knowledge about objects or that there is a single methodology by which objects may be accurately determined.

Determining Objects a Priori

The various attempts to acquire a priori knowledge of objects actually reduces to the problem of methodology. It inevitably posits an object or objects, whether Descarte’s cogito or Kant’s space/time, by which all other objects are determined. In essence it attempts to determine a priori the methodology rather than the actual objects, but this is one and the same as will be discussed below.

Methodology

Any methodology at once limits and determines what objects or sorts of objects will be posited as existing (thus it is by extension the same as determining objects as mentioned above).

• Example: Objects derived by the scientific method are guaranteed to be regularly patterned, available to all (for the verifying portion of the methodology), etc. For more information regarding the critique of scientific methodology you can see This Paper.

However any methodology has its problems, it is often unable to account for or adequately define certain objects. Thus there often arise competing methodologies to explain certain phenomena.

• Example: Psychoanalysis in opposition to the scientific method’s positing of neurotransmitters. Note that psychoanalysis too uses a methodology and thus employs an entirely different set of objects.

Thus it is clear that determining what objects there are in the world (and what objects there can be) is totally dependent upon the methodology used. This then makes the argument about objects actually an argument about methodology. On the surface it would seem that any argument for a methodology would result in a reductio ad infinitum because there must be a methodology for determining the methodology, however this is not the case as will be discussed below.

Ontological Methodology

As previously discussed in the article above, methodology is the determining factor of one’s ontology. Thus it is important to discuss the creation and evolution of one’s ontological methodology as well as any possibilities for judging among various methodologies. Note that methodology as used here is similar to Carnap’s framework theory.

The Starting Point of Methodology

At first glance it seems that any attempt to look at or evaluate methodology results in a reductio ad infinitum. This is because in order to evaluate a methodology, just as in evaluating the existence of objects, there must exist a standard, a way of judging. In short, there must exist a methodology. However there is a basis from which all evaluations, all methodologies must take root. This basis is consciousness. Consciousness, in turn, is dependent upon language as previously discussed. Thus all methodologies must conform to existing language/consciousness, and can only be judged if this is the case.

Requirements for New Methodologies

Before any new methodology may come into being there must first take place an enlargment of consciousness to include the previously unnameable terms, premises, etc. Often these processes (creation of new terms and creation of new methodology) seem to take place simultaneously. However a methodology does not become analytic, become closed, until the terms exist. Therefore their creation must come first.

The Birth and Evolution of Ontological Methodologies

The above problem being taken care of, and having shown that consciousness, and therefore language, is at the root of any and all methodologies, it is time to look at the actual process by which one obtains an ontological methodology, as well as how such a methodology can change.

Original Ontology One’s original ontology, or original ontological methodology, comes to being much in the same way as does one’s language. That is to say that it is imposed upon an individual. As an individual is being taught a language at the earliest stages of life he/she is also being taught an ontological methodology that corresponds to that language.

• This does not mean that everyone who speaks, say English, begins with the same ontological methodology. As noted a language is merely the root of all methodologies, there exist (and can exist) any number of methodologies within the said language. Thus an individual receives the methodologies of those whom teach the language.

Problems With Original Ontology This would be simple enough if an individual were taught language by a single person, however this is not the case. Individuals receive language from various sources including family, friends, and school teachers. Thus they are quite possibly assailed by a number of ontologies reached through a number of methodologies. The result is often an ontology that is fraught with contradictions. Yet for many day-to-day functions a contradictory ontology is not problematic, it is only when an ontology comes under scrutiny that its problems are found. Many (perhaps most) people will live their lives with such an ontology.

Acceptance of a Single Ontological Methodology What, then, is to be done for those who do find the contradictions in their ontology and are in turn troubled by them? In such cases there are, as I see it, three options.

• First, an individual may take several objects which they believe to be of great importance or necessity and in turn find the methodology that “gets” them these objects. In the process they will most likely either “pick up” or “lose” other elements of their previous, contradictory ontology, but they will maintain those which they find most important.
• Second, an individual may instead work from the ground up, finding an ontological base or methodology which seems correct and working it out. In this case individuals are not guaranteed any of the objects present in their previous ontology.
• Third, and most difficult, is the creation of an ontological methodology. This would involve the creation of new terms, new objects, all with some end or purpose in mind. A good example of this would be the recent creation of various feminist ontologies in opposition to the traditional scientific (method) ontology.

Judging Among Methodologies

Perhaps while outlining the process of how one’s ontology comes to be, as well as how one may change their ontological methodology, we have discovered the real root of evaluating methodology. We have already said that a methodology must necessarily conform to language and consciousness, but this says little about how one judges among methodologies. It simply ensures that they are closed and complete systems. But along the way we seem to have stumbled upon the criteria of judgment, that criteria is desire. Note in the three examples given above as to how one comes to truly adhere to, or take up, a given methodology. In the first example one must choose the objects they believe to be of most importance, those they desire to have in their ontology. In the second example the same thing takes place, but rather than desiring objects, the individual desires a certain base. Most obviously, in the third, an individual is creating a methodology with some end or purpose in mind, a desired end or purpose. Thus it would seem that desire is an integral and necessary part of any real ontology, any real methodology.

That’s that. Comments are always welcome. Maybe better defining language should be next…