Of Ex and Why? (Part I)

Part I: Ontology and Teleology

Perhaps the two most looming questions of existence just so happen to be: What is this? & Why this and not that, or nothing even? These questions are couched in many clever dynamic terms, such as: being and becoming (or nothingness), substance and meaning, stasis and change, etc.—but their referents, namely: ontology (what the cosmos is) and teleology (the 'design' or pattern of the cosmos), extend inward like branches to the same metaphysical trunk.

However, the trunk which supports them seems to reside in an intellectual null-zone of sorts. A point at which both branches must converge and be grounded by the trees trunk, but where there seemingly is none.

However, before we can consider these questions, there are other things that we must first take into account.

What is Ontology and Teleology Really?

Simply put, the human mind is compelled to tell itself a story about reality. No one is certain why this is the case and not something else, but it is undeniably true that there is a real, extrinsic phenomenal world and our mind is compelled to understand it. And this is realized, in that, we need to know what it is we are explaining and some logical means of how it got that way. This means a couple of things:

1. Stories are, at the core of it, an explanation and ontological and teleological reality are necessary for the explanation of anything.
2. The explanation of what we observe and what we reason about depends on a person's mental capacity.
3. Therefore, the concepts of ontology and teleology are entirely dependent upon mind.

So, to not just reiterate what was said, but to answer the above question, ontology and teleology are ultimately concepts that reside in, and depend upon the human mind.

However, to say that something is dependent upon mind without explaining what aspects of mind it is dependent on would do injustice to the explanation. So, before going any further, let's look at what leads to the belief that these concepts depend upon the mind.

I believe it a reasonable place to start by saying that it is impossible for a particular thought about something to be synonymous with that thing. When I look at a tree and think about it, the tree is not in my head, per se, but it's representation is.

Therefore, when we viscerally perceive data, (like the information passed via photons on and through our retina during the process of sight) this information is blended into an overall visceral experience as mental representation.

At this point it is available to the cognitive faculties housed in the conscious aspect of our mind. Through our cognitive faculties the stage is set to use this information for whatever subsequent purpose to be prescribed by us through our conscious, agentive character.

Also housed in the conscious aspect of mind is our reasoning capacity, this too is utilized by our agentive self. Through this function of mind we take these representations as self-evident facts and weave them into a net—a net to sieve the phenomenal world. All in order to obtain what is real while letting the illusory, or downright false, slip through.

There are many conceivable explanations for the behavioral reasons why we do this, some are highly metaphysical, some are reductive, but all are unable to deny the simple reason as rooted in the compulsion of typically functioning minds to create a story about the world as we typically perceive it. The reasons about this, whatever the matter, aren't really of any consequence at this point, but the existence of the phenomenon qua phenomenon is the heart of the matter, at least for this moment in our consideration.

I would also be remiss if I didn't address at this point the core question behind this blog, namely, is there really an affinity between the way the human mind works and something "mind-like" behind the order we observe in the universe? Are things that speak to the qualitative aspects to nature like intentionality, meaning, and individual subjective experience accountable in terms of quantitative aspects of nature (i.e. things only explainable only through math, science, physics, etc.) without losing the "folksy," non-scientific understanding of such things that all capable people are easily able to point to? Or if such things aren't accountable in quantifiable terms only, are they then in a realm all there own? There is too much to unpack here, and must be unloaded as time goes on.*

In moving on, we will look at over the next installments a very brief sketch of the foundations and history of the questions regarding “What is?” and “Why is it that way?”

*Updated 6/8/13*