Dialectical Ontology

Becoming

Introduction

This book presents a metanarrative of reality that defines the meaning of the term ‘be’ in relation to all particular things, each of which must participate in primary, and logically interdependent, states of existence. The ontological considerations herein are dialectical to the extent that they are distinguished by a hierarchical unity of opposites. Although the subject matter is organized in a linear fashion, its nature is circular due to its interconnectivity, and this circularity is reflected, inescapably, in the language of the text.

Principles of ontology are conveyed through a didactic exchange between two fictitious characters identified as ‘Teacher’ and ‘Student’. Context, pertaining to these characters and to the content discussed between them, is deliberately minimized in order that the reader may receive a concise message that is largely free from irrelevant and distracting details. The dialogue between characters is meant not only as a literary device, but also as a projection of the author’s conscious thoughts, which meditate upon the ultimate essence of everything that is understood to ‘be’.

I.

To Be And That Which Is

Student: "What does it mean to be?"

Teacher: "In the most fundamental sense, to be is to exist."

Student: "Your definition seems to relate the meaning of the term ‘be’ with the meaning of the term ‘exist’ such that the words are synonymous and interchangeable. You have also related the meaning of the term ‘be’ to what it means to ‘exist’ through the use of a variant form of the term ‘be’, namely the word ‘is’. Effectively, it seems that you have said that ‘to be is to be’, which is redundant and tells me nothing in addition to what I already know about what the term ‘be’ means."

Teacher: "My apologies. I was under the impression that you did not have a clear understanding of what it means to be, and so I attempted to relate this concept to that of existence, the meaning of which I assumed that you would know. It is difficult for me to address your question about the meaning of the term ‘be’ without using the term and its variant forms. For the sake of clarity, would you prefer that I invent words to represent the term and its variant forms?"

Student: No. I think that might invite confusion and complicate matters further for me. In this discussion, I accept your usage of the term ‘be’ and its variant forms. Nevertheless, I did assume that there was more involved with the definition of the term than the one that you provided.

Teacher: "Any additional information that we might discuss about the meaning of the term ‘be’ can only arise as a result of relating other things to it, and to its variant forms; what it means to be can only be understood in relation to particulars.

Let us also observe that when the term ‘be’ is used in accordance with its meaning, without any explicit verbal qualification or association, it may be issued and perceived as a command, question, or statement. Otherwise, the isolated use of the term ‘be’ is nonsensical. As a command, the term implicates someone that issues it to another with the intention and expectation of its performance, so to speak. As a question, the term implicates someone that understands the term as an option which can be selected. As an independent statement, the term implicates someone that is responding to a command or question. In any case, the verbally unqualified and unassociated utterance of the term ‘be’ invites correspondence with particulars."

Student: Could you elaborate upon what you mean when you say that term ‘be’ ‘invites correspondence with particulars?

Teacher: "Only something in particular can be, and every particular thing is, including that which is not, as well as the paradoxical totality of everything as something in particular; the term ‘be’ logically implies a this, if you will, which serves as something in particular that is, or that which is.

When the term ‘be’ is related to something in particular, questions concerning the latter may give rise to at least one particular what, or how, which would serve as the state of existence of that which is. Any state of existence may be related to that which is with respect to either essence or circumstance. An essential state of existence always involves a description of the identity or nature of a thing, viz., what something is. A circumstantial state of existence always involves a description of the way in which something is, viz., how something is. Circumstantial states of existence may consist of the position of something in time and space, or when and where something is.

Moreover, when the term ‘be’ is related to something in particular, causal questions concerning that which is may arise, resulting in explanations of that which is, or why something is. Questions of this sort may be asked, not only of that which is, but also of any essential or circumstantial state of existence of that which is. Causal questions may be asked only in connection with the source or purpose of that which is. Questions pertaining to the source of something in particular seek to uncover an origin, i.e., where it comes from. Questions pertaining to the purpose of something in particular seek to identify an intended outcome, i.e., the reason for being."

Student: "I assume that your use of the word ‘something’ includes people, so that any particular someone can be in a particular state, or multiple states. I also assume that you are including groups of people and things as particular entities which can be in a particular state, or multiple states. Are these assumptions correct?"

Teacher: "Yes, your assumptions are correct. I would also like to add that any particular something or someone that is, which is established as a this, and which may be established in relation to certain states of existence, implies someone who perceives and establishes them as such. To realize, through implication, that someone is the perceiver of that which is, is to uncover the logically codependent relationship between the perceiver and that which is perceived. Only a perceiver can behold, question, describe, and explain that which is perceived."

Student: "In summary, is it correct to say that, if the term ‘be’ is issued and perceived, in accordance with its meaning, as a command, question, or statement, without any qualification or association, it may implicate or elicit associated particulars that can be identified, in general, as who, what, where, when, how, and why?"

Teacher: Yes. That is correct.

Student: Ok. In what way are particulars associated with the term ‘be’?

Teacher: "The interaction of particulars through use of the term ‘be’ can be represented, abstractly, with the following sequence of symbols: x + y. The first symbol (x) represents something in particular which is. The second symbol (+) represents the term ‘be’, or one of its variant forms, which affirms the existence of, and invites particulars to relate to, the first symbol (x). The third symbol (y) represents the state of existence that can be said of the first symbol (x), and which is connected to the latter by the second symbol (+). Accordingly, we may say that something in particular (x) is (+) in a particular state of existence (y).

Using this formula with more concrete terms, we could say the following: ‘The water (x) is (+) cold (y).’. This, and other similar examples, can illustrate the state of existence of something in relation to either essence or circumstance. The ‘cold’ state of existence of the water might be concluded as circumstantial to the water if it is only observed to be a momentary state of existence. Otherwise, the ‘cold’ state of existence of the water might be concluded as essential to the water if the water is repeatedly observed to be in a ‘cold’ state of existence as its present circumstance; if one were to have multiple experiences of a particular portion of water as ‘cold’, it is possible for one to conclude that the water in question has an essential characteristic of coldness. Of course, the accuracy of this kind of conclusion depends upon the continued observation of specific states of existence pertaining to circumstance, and the consistency of these observations with other related experiences and conclusions."

Student: "Is it necessary for that which is to have a state of existence?"

Teacher: "Essential and circumstantial states of existence are organized under two similar categories: ontological and contextual. The ontological category, which we could call the ‘ontological state of existence’, or the ‘primary state of existence’, indicates that something is, is not, or a combination of these. The contextual category, which we could call the ‘contextual state of existence’, or the ‘secondary state of existence’, indicates anything that is other than the ontological state