Hierarchies

The multiple projections of the dualism Physus and Logos causes an interferece between different ways of making distinctions. This leads to nihilism. The way out of this dilemma is to separate the physus from the logos and vice versa so that they will not interfere. We make this separation by distinguishing between the levels of coherent organizational thresholds in physus called the Ontic Emergent Hierarchy and the levels of coherent organizational thresholds in logos called the Ontological Emergent Hierarchy.

Ontic Emergent Hierarchy (provisional list)

Ontological Emergent Hierarchy (provisional list)

Phenomenology discovers form as the basic organizational patterning in consciousness. Forms are projected by intentions which are consciousness OF something. Husserl's phenomenology is based on the idea that form is the only organizational principle in consciousness. Gurevich attempted to add also the Gestalt as a separate organizational principle. Here in the Ontological Emergent Hierarchy we add a whole series of emergent levels of organization which phenomenology may discover in consciousness independent of their arising in the world.

Science discovers the Ontic Emergent Hierarchy through applying reductionism to everything in sight. What is impossible to reduce in the end is finally recognized begrudgingly as an emergent level 'out there' in nature (the physus). The levels of emergence ARE the history of the unfolding of the physus. Now our idea of that unfolding is no longer growth or necessary evolution alone but is the unfolding of emergent layers out of lower level emergent layers.

The Ontological Emergent Levels unfold from top to bottom whereas the Ontic Emergent Layers unfold from bottom to top. These two hierarchies are duals of each other with respect to the constitution of the levels out of each other. The Ontological Emergent Layers unfold from the world down while the Ontic Emergent Layers unfold from the sub-Quark level up.

Not all the Ontological Layers are humanly accessible. Those below structure and above the word are in effect virtual layers that are not experienced directly but are inferred to exist from the patterning of the others.

These two hierarchies manifest independently in the realms of Physus and Logos. If we keep them separate as different concerns then they do not interfere with each other. But if we allow them to intersect then they interfere with each other such that we cannot tell what is from physus and what is from logos. This interference pattern structures manifestation and renders it groundless. In theory any of the Ontological Levels can be used to look at any of the Ontic Levels. On the other hand the concreta of the ontic levels is the embodiment of the ontological levels in every case. However, there is some mismatch between the Ontological Levels and the Ontic Levels and that mismatch causes serious problems in trying to understand the ontic via the ontological or the ontological via the ontic. The point of greatest resonance is between the organism and the system. As an analogy we see organisms as the perfect systems and we see systems as the conceptual projection of organisms. But there is nothing in the ontic hierarchy corresponding to forms. The reduction of science turned everything lower than the organism into structures. So there is a fundamental disparity between the two hierarchies.

What lies behind the two Hierarchies is the non-dual realm of Nomos, pure order. This is what makes it so that mathematical models apply not only to the ordering of the mind but also to nature as science discovers. The non-dual realm is the global sameness of the two sides of the mobius strip. We do not see it anywhere locally but it is true globally. When we separate the physus from the logos and then consider both globally then the non-dual nomos is indicated. The non-dual realm is not the transcendent nor is it the immanent. It is not the physus nor is it the logos. It is the global non-duality that is interior to the interval of the dualisms that appear if the dualisms are kept apart and not allowed to interact.

 There is another Hierarchy which is made up of two interstitial sub-hierarchies:

The hierarchy of information to which the individual can relate:

This hierarchy shows us how we relate to information. First it is merely data but when we combine it with viewpoints then it become information. When we abstract the conceptual content then it becomes knowledge which is the most persistent thing. When we combine it with experience then it becomes wisdom. When we realize its emptiness it becomes gnosis. And when we relate it to the absolute it becomes a staying, i.e. something that is permanant.

The hierarchy of emergence within the tradition:

In the tradition we find that there are levels at which emergences happen within the social realm. Emergence has pulled free of the ontic in the social realm and it appears at various levels. We can see it thought any of the ontological thresholds of organization. We see it on a spectrum from the most contingent to the most necessary. At the level of facticity there is limitation and finitiude of states of affairs. We conceptualize these and form networks of concepts called theories. Theories appear on the background of paradigms which contain the fundamental hidden assumptions shared by theorists.. The episteme is the basic philosophical categories that the things recognized by the theory are based upon. Ontology is the most general concept that is related to manifestation. Existence is what lies beyond manifestation as showing and hiding. It is what is neither shown nor hidden. The absolute is the necessary against which everything else is contingent.

These two hierarchies combine to form the following hierarchy:

What we notice about these two interleaved hierarchies is that they represent the intersection of the individual's experience and the social nexus. In the social nexus there are levels of organization that appears as culture as it is laid down and as social organization of science as it is manifesting. the individual connects these layers of the social that make up the tradition providing the essential experience that converts one level into the next in both directions. In this double hierarchy the flow of emergence is in both directions unlike the ontological and ontic hierarchies.

The interleaved hierarchy is a nexus in which the experience of the individual with the hierarchy of information combines with the social tiers at which the emergent events occur in society. Individuals act as the transducers between the tiers in the social field. Since the hierarchy connects gives us a series of bridges between facticity and the absolute we will call this the A-peiron Hierarchy. That is it stretches from the limited to the unlimited and in the process it connects the social to the individual via the interleaving of levels of information and levels of emergent impact within the society. Thus the interleaved hierarchy represents the spectrum between the metaphysical and limited matters but bridged by the interleaving of the social and the individual.