(Old Metaphysics) - Will for Togetherness
The world is the Will for Togetherness and nothing but. Any aspect we name of this world will be a different perspective of the same Will for Togetherness she is. The truth of this Will for Togetherness is the actions, substances, particular fruits, and utter allness the Will for Togetherness manifests as. The Will for Togetherness is the world, but what does this mean? Why should we say it is so? What are the implications of seeing the world this way? Many questions, many questions that will all be answered in the unfolding of the process of articulating the Will for Togetherness at first negatively and rationally. This will be proceeded by the articulation of our experience of these rational revelations in their manifestations in our empirical lived world as human beings with intermediary clarifications of certain details throughout the work.
Rational Revelation of The Will for Togetherness
Presumption 1:The World is One
The world in the start of this work will be presumed to be one of x, with x to be clarified later in the next section of this work. Question toward Presumption 1 Why must we assume the world to be one x? Answer(s) Towards this Question: ⢠Well first if we divided the world into two or more xs there arises the classic problem as to how any of these indefinitely many parts can come to interact or be united with the others if they are fundamentally different, and if they are not fundamentally different then we seem to have already presupposed a unity between the indefinite number of parts of the world which seems like a type of oneness already. In fact to even give any one of said parts of the world its own determinacy separate from any other part presupposes that said part is one of itself in unity with itself otherwise there is nothing to separate itself from any other determinate part of the world. And if the parts are not separated in some sense then we have already arrived at the fundamental unity of the worldâs being in the partâs interpenetration with each other. But then this unity of interpenetrating parts is at once a type of oneness and a type of multiplicity as while there might be one fundamental unity there is still a diversity within said unity. ⢠I am not here to dispute this diversity but rather that any particular numerical starting point for this diversity of parts would be in itself arbitrary and brute if not elaborated further except for oneness as onenessâs unity is already presupposed in itself and its oneness which is one unity while any other multiplicity must presuppose its unity to the whole of the world and its number of diverse parts at the same time making the latter option say that the number of parts chosen is as essential to the worldâs being the world as its unity with itself. Yet it seems quite conceivable to think of the world with any of a particular number of parts, but not any of those particular numbers of parts without its unity with itself which is oneness but it does seem conceivable to think of unity without unifying any particular number besides its unity with its own oneness without reference to any other particular number it would need in order to do this unifying. This means oneness will always be more fundamental than the multiplicity it unifies but the latter is not necessarily the case for any other number. This gives a reasonable case that oneness and unity is more fundamental than any particular number of unified parts of the world. ⢠The case for analyzing the world from the perspective of one x will be further demonstrated in the next section of this work with the simple notion that we can get to an arbitrary or infinite number of parts of the world from presupposing one activity or substance of x to the world but we cannot get to the unity between this arbitrary or infinite number of parts from the parts themselves because they already depended on unity to be relegated to themselves and each other in the first place.
I hope that these brief clarifications give at least a prima facie reason for accepting the oneness of the world, the latter section will be to clarify what that oneness is one of and the explanatory power of this one of in how it explains particularity, diversity, time, and even love from out of its own essence.
Presumption 2 The World is One Not
The world is one unifying of a not, a unity that is in one sense in identity with its own exteriority or in another sense a unity which binds the world together by making that which it unites into presence inaccessible to itself with said immediate inaccessibility being the source of said unity. (This initial alienation is notably immediate, that is to say there is nothing stopping an immediate identity with alienation from becoming mediately a negation of alienation if that which unity is an alienation of is an alienation of itself mediately as its higher power) This will be the starting premise of this work. Does this mean the world is not? No it means the world is one eternal notness as a common unifying essence and activity rather than quantity. It is not a not that is zero nots or one particular not. But what does it mean instead to say the world is one not, at least how do I mean it? I mean the world is one indefinite not one, as in that whatever we say about any particular thing or activity of the world or of the world as a whole we can say it is not one in essence or activity and that it is the same not one in activity or essence. The world is one (essence) that is not one (quantity) essentially. The first oneness of the one not one is that it is, it is not one; that is to say it is identical to its not oneness as its truth. Then what is the one notness of the one not one? It is the very aforementioned notness of the absolute one in quantity that proceeds it indefinitely. Absolute oneness (as opposed to mediated oneness) in this case means anything that is purely an interior unity whose essence or activity is purely affirmative and internal without any exteriorizing or alienating from itself. What not-onenessâs unity is in turn will be a pure exteriority of such unalienated and immanently interior oneness. To be of the world is to be anything that is not absolutely one in quantity.
The World is Not Particular and Not All
Entailment 1 >Many Not-Ones
What does this mean? It means that whatever is not one is, and it is in the same sense and through the same is as every not one that is through not being one. What is is simply all not-one(s), and all not-one(s) are really the same not-one the world universally is. What are the implications of this? Well first of all the world explodes into infinite multiplicity as the only thing being is predicated as being is being alienated from absolute oneness, so as long as something is not-one (some sort of exteriority or alienation) to absolute oneness then it is. But are these not-ones all atomized indifferent to each other?
Entailment 2 >The All
No they are not for whatever is, is also not (that is exterior and exteriorizing, alien to itself and alienating); as in being whatever is not, exterior, or alienated from themselves. So whatever is immediately would become all else that is qua the nature of its very isness. But at the same time whatever is not is only not itself through being all others, but so are all others meaning through overspilling into its others any particular non-one spills into itself. This immediately binds all that is into each other in the most pure sense conceivable. The world is not one, and only not one; therefore it is all in all as any part of the all immediately ejects into its other which is itself as all others are their infinite ejecting from themselves into all others. But this all itself is not as well, as all not ones are all. Yet they are importantly still immanently not, that is self alienating. What does this lead to?
Entailment 3 >Not the All
It leads to the all ejecting itself into every particular not all which is anything that is well not all, the all is thus whichever does not immediately dwell in the all. Thus every not-one that ejects itself into the orgy of the all is at once also the very all ejecting itself out of said orgy in self alienation. Where then does this leave every not-one? It leaves the not ones both alienated from totalization and exterior to atomization. Any not-one both is not itself and not the all at once! How does one be the not being of the all in themselves? Well since every not-one is only itself in its other it must be not its other to not be the all, in a sense for a not-one to negate itself it must negate its other as it is in its other. But what is the not-one negating in this case if that which is negated is identical to its very not-being its other? It would simply not not be the other, that is to be the other while also not being the all and the one.
The World is Particular and All in Time
Entailment 4 >Togetherness
But then this means every not-one is its other(s), but not all others. What not-ones or more simply particulars are, are to be that which are a reference and encompassing of others without encompassing the all. But since this encompassing is also not-one as all that is is not one, and that which is not-one is for any particular is the other particulars and the particulars are their very encompassing of other particulars then every particular is an encompassment of other particulars that is not the encompassings of every other particular or all of them. Since this a mouthful we will simplify abbreviate this to saying every particular is its particular limit on encompassment of other particulars, I will call this limit a togetherness. All particular not-ones are particular types of togetherness with other not-one(s) that are not all. But then this togetherness is not-one as well. Would this mean that the limit that any particular togetherness is not then be itself? No for here we start to reach a determinate equilibrium in being, as since every togetherness is not all and not one; they can only not be themselves in being other togethernesses. But if all togethernesses must do this through the notness of the not-one they are then if they did this through being other togetherness qua their self defining limit, they immediately would all become the same togetherness as any limit the togetherness would become is also not itself indefinitely until there is one limit on what encompasses every togetherness. But since what the limits are encompassing is other togetherness there would be no togetherness to encompass as all togetherness became the same limit on encompassment which is all the limits meaning we have reached nothing more than the all where no limits exist at all. And since the all is self alienating (as aforementioned in previous sections) then the all ejects these togethernesses back into their respective limit into determinacy.
Entailment 5 >The Will for Togetherness and Time
But does this then mean that the world is statically crystallized in limits of eternal particular encompassment between togethernesses? No, for since the togetherness is still not-one we begin to see the emergence of time itself out of the power of negativity as the internal movement of a togetherness. A togetherness may negate one of two aspects of itself to negate itself, either its limit or the other it encompasses as a togetherness is the other(s) it encompasses at once. As we have established the former to be a dead end it must be the latter that occurs. This means that every togetherness is a limit on the togethernesses that it encompasses into itself at once that is also constantly negating the togethernesses it encompasses out of itself at the same time. But what happens when a togetherness ejects another togetherness from its presence? Well since all togethernesses are their togetherness with other togethernesses this togetherness enters another different togetherness as essential to being a togetherness is being together with another togetherness. But how can a togetherness be in multiple states of togethernesses at the same time that both include and exclude a particular other togetherness at the same time? The answer is they do not and this is the very reason time emerges. Time is the result of a togetherness which is both its togetherness with other particular togetherness(es) and a limit or exclusion of these togetherness(es) from its togetherness being both internal to the togetherness of the first aforementioned togetherness causing the togetherness to oscillate reality between the two states infinitely. This oscillation is internal to the very being of the togetherness as it is a result of the negativity of the not-oneness the togetherness internally is. A togetherness really then becomes a movement of a limit on encompassing other limits between the other limits it encompasses. That which is a type of limit and a type of movement is a speed. What delimits one togetherness from another is thus its unique speed of togetherness that is not the speed of every other togetherness. We have hitherto used negative description to describe the not-one the world is but now that we have arrived at the stage of time we can begin to describe the world in more positive terms. The not-oneness of the world has revealed itself as the internal movement of togethernesses of various speeds, an internal movement derived by nothing other than itself may rightly be said to be a will. What is this a will for? In order for a speed of togetherness to become an encompassing of another state of togetherness with different togethernesses at any moment then it must be driven from the current state of togetherness to another state of togetherness hence it is a will for another togetherness. But whichever state a will for togetherness ends up in with any other state of togetherness, due to the the restless collapse of the one will drive the the will within the togetherness to yet another togetherness from that state still until ultimately it seems to be a will for complete togetherness with every other togetherness in reality. But this is a togetherness not immediately realized in eternity but rather mediately in time. Every togetherness the world is, is thus a will for togetherness in general.
The World is Intrinsically Love
Entailment 6 >Love is the Beginning and the End of an Eternal Return
But then problems arise when a togetherness reaches the end of its interactive circuit with all other togetherness in reality, which is: how can a togetherness by will depart toward any particular other togetherness if the degree to which it wills for togetherness with other togethernesses is in principle equal? Would they not then just depart toward many other togethernesses equally in all directions at random? By what principle would such a togetherness access or get outside to any of the particular others if they immediately are ejected out of presence with the other togethernesses they are currently with? Would there not be an ejection of all togethernesses from each other by exterior wills for togetherness? If that was the case would that not cause an equilibrium of sorts where every togetherness is ejecting each other out of presence equally resulting in no togetherness being able to enter into presence with any other for every togetherness would then be this very ejecting immediately? It seems to be that for a togetherness to even stabilize into a state of presence in the first place there must be as much a departing from every other togethernesses toward every other equally so a binding or affinity to return to particular other togethernesses. In principle all wills for togetherness are all other wills for togetherness meaning every will for togetherness that completes its interactive circuit with all reality is also the completion of the interactive circuit of every other will for togetherness, yet a will for togetherness is at once its very distinct speed of togetherness with other togethernesses; meaning due to this essential inequality there will be moments for togethernesses that had reached the completion of their circuit while those of a different speed had not, resulting in a contradiction where a togetherness had both completed and not completed its interaction at the same time. What is the solution to these problems? The solution is that the will for togetherness of one togetherness has not completed its interactive circuit with every other togetherness, but only does so when every other togetherness does so as well; meaning that a will for togetherness does not merely pop out of existence once it particularly has interacted with everything else in reality, but that it rather must return to interact with every other will for togetherness as well ad infinitum until every other will for togetherness had interacted with all of reality as well. This need to go back is the reason that departure into the world is even possible as every will for togetherness must have some degree of will to return toward every other will for togethernesses in order to exit outward in the first place. This immanent need to eternally return to the world in order to allow others to flourish into togetherness inside every particular manifests in degrees toward other particulars, as if the desire to return was equal between all togethernesses we would have the problem aforementioned of no departure even being possible as every other will for togetherness would pull such a togetherness equally in all directions toward their presence resulting in stasis.Thus every togetherness has a degree of desire to return to every other togetherness that is different between every other togetherness. If we are to think of this difference in partially quantitative terms then it seems like every will for togetherness has a highest degree of at least a certain type affinity toward at least one other will for togetherness. This degree of affinity comes from the inner impetus of every will for togetherness to depart and return to the world, in other words from every will for togethernessâs will. It thus seems that every will for togetherness wills its degree and type of affinity toward every other will for togetherness in reality including its affinities of the highest type and every will for togetherness is also having this done to them at the same time; it thus seems that every will for togetherness is both the subject progenitor and object receiver a certain type of highest affinity by the inner will of it and all the world. This means that the world is fundamentally bound together by a highest allure and an act of alluring in particularity for every will for togetherness; in other words every will for togetherness is love, a maximum and unique affinity for one in their particularity and the receiving of this affinity in presence. The will for togetherness is thus an eternal return of love. Indeed, it is love along with togetherness as the positive mirror to the negativity of the not all and not one that clarifies the realization of life in being. Because all particular beings are inherently lovable in their utter particularity, the allness which denies such particularity to all beings cannot survive the trial by will inherent to being when being is inherently a will to love. The togetherness willed for by being allows this love to not be of a one but an infinitely many as, everything that can be loved will be loved in togetherness with all else that can be loved as a community of free beings that realizes the lovability of every being from a unique perspective of a being that said lovable one is together with as an otherness rather than one with as an identity. Beingâs negativity is that which realize the world as identity in all things, beingâs positivity is the living of said identity as an otherness and uniqueness that cannot be reduced to a stagnate reunion but the saga of eternal dance and adventure that binds all lovable ones in a distance that gives their bodies form.
Interlude:
High affinities always transgress the balance of low affinities forcing a thing ever closer to them at the cost of every affinity it currently holds. True love transgresses on a thing's fading into multiplicity and engraves in its restless becoming across eternity into the form of being as an ever-maximal triumph upon which a thing's return and participation in the world arises. Love engraves itself for every particular thing as the endless waves of eternity that washes over the forms a being becomes until only the most mighty and perennial relationship remains in the ruble. This rubble is but a mirror of the waves of eternity that its absolute finitude is equally in its other absolute infinitude which washes the two objects of absolute true love toward each other back into eternity only to prove that their love will be born again eternally triumphant in the chaotic sea of the world as if to prove it is stronger or at least equal to said world. I will call this cosmic archetypal recurrent path to encounter carved from the sea of being a thing's strife. Every thing is this perennial love that transgresses on a thing's equilibrium to the world intrinsically as all things are this structure realized by the particular strife of a will for togetherness. A thing is at home in itself in its ability to realize this eternal strife's moments of stability which we call a world or epoch
Elaboration: Particulars as Togetherness (Potential) and Love (Affinity)
Togetherness and the Potential of Particulars
Togetherness is the limit on how a particular encompasses any of its other(s) to constitute itself in a present moment as aforementioned. How is this limit to be understood? I will put forward an understanding of the limit as a unique intrinsic potential of transformation. As aforementioned togethernesses move from one state of presence to another while not encompassing all of or exclusively its own being into presence, but this encompassment is distinct to the togetherness in question. What remains between one transformation of a togetherness to another is a continuity across transformations of its encompassment. One way of understanding this transformation is a consistent speed of being; however this is to be to most general sense of speed, a speed preceding extension and even in a certain sense numericity itself. This type of consistent factor of transformation is not to be understood as a continuous number but rather a pure and unique potential (that is unless the potential in question is a number itself). The potential that is unique to a togetherness is not to be understood in what it is uniquely able to become, but how rather how it becomes uniquely as every potential a togetherness is is able to become all other potentials as actual concrescences of togetherness delimited by the potential unique to the togetherness as the factor that makes a transformation present and governs the space of the passage to other presents the togetherness ends up in. A potential in this context can become any particular single other togetherness, but when it comes to the possibility of ensembles of united togethernesses this is where the unique limitation for a togetherness comes in. The potential is in a sense a mediator for what ensemble of togethernesses unite into one presence in the continuous unfolding of what might be called the âstoryâ of a togetherness life. If every being is thought to be a work of art which tells the eternal story of the will for togetherness, a particularâs unique potential might be thought of as the medium which tells this same story under a means. A piece of paper painted over a thousand times and a piano engulfed by a hundred performances may both tell the eternal story of the world but only in the manner that maintains its artistic medium as a lovable individualâs uniqueness and style.
Epistemology
All truth is analytic (true by identity or definition) in a metaphysics of non-oneness or will for togetherness, as every particular thing or will for togetherness is only itself and is all of reality in itself and not in another, the only thing that thus distinguishes one thing from another is the how in which it is everything meaning its speed and affinity which a thing analytically is. For a statement to be true about something is thus to correctly identify a thingâs affinities and speed. But since everything is, to misidentify a thingâs affinity is not to say it is what it is not as everything is what it is not by its very nature but to say it is more one thing it has less of an affinity for than a thing it has more of an affinity toward. Truth is thus not the binary with the false but a spectrum of more or less, or rather the binary of true and false is the direction upon said spectrum a discourse lands upon or rather is projecting toward. For an example that may make this seem more intuitive; it seems less wrong to say a cat is a dog than a cat is a slug even though both we might commonly say are wrong, we would say the latter is a greater error than the former as a dog has more common features to a cat than a slug does (at least intuitively). This may be one way to model an understanding of a thing's affinities tangibly.
To describe a cat as a regime of properties it has a high affinity toward is itself also not exhaustive for we can say for example a cat is an organic animal but we also can say a cat is a machine if we were to imagine say a robotic cat. However the organic cat and the robot cat may each have distinct features perhaps more distinct than the features that even divide a cat from a dog. But we intuitively say it is more right to call a robot cat a cat than it is to call a cat a dog even though the dog likely shares more traits in common with the organic cat than the robot cat does. This dimension of a concept like say a cat might be thought of in the scheme of the will for togethernessâs metaphysics as the speed of a concept. How wide of scope can a thing have while still remaining itself? Can a cat be a machine and still be a cat? One may say such a distinction like cat is but an arbitrary distinction of discourse, but I think we can also see the very fact certain concepts push the word through certain discourse regimes more often than others to be evidence of at least the wordâs historical and therefore real trajectory. But are words not themselves ontological entities we can use to understand reality? If a word can move through reality through different contexts while still maintaining certain recurring patterns, why couldnât any other entity if they are both equally entities?
I argue not just words but our very being as humans have this same ontological profile. We intuitively in our lives can observe that we can shift relations to other things in our lives while still maintaining our lives. I can for example look at a glass of water on one side of the room and then turn my head to a bucket of gasoline on the other side, however in this process it seems intuitive that my life has continued despite the object occupying it changing. Since we are the only entities we can grasp immanently as we are our lives, I believe it reasonable to presume that the structure of ourselves is relatively comparable to the structure of other entities. From analyzing the structure of our living presence and process I think we can see certain conclusions that seem compatible with the metaphysics of will for togetherness. For one there seems to be parallel intuitive senses of non-persistence and persistence, we seem to be able to watch a glass of water stay in place from one moment to the next but we can also look away from it. We do not however seem to be able to simply ignore our body, it seems to cling to us from one moment to the next unless we lose part of it. The glass of water seems to indicate passive non-persistent aspects to the world that can be volitionally added into a world, while the body seems to indicate a forceful active aspect to the world that is persistent unless acted upon by a mitigating circumstance.
The body parallels a thingâs highest affinity, an ever clang and returned to aspect of a thing, that nonetheless can itself be detached despites clinging like, say, by cutting off your arm and clinging the arm to another thing that has higher power or affinity over or toward it. In contrast the freedom of occupation that a life has in relation to certain particular objects seem to parallel the freedom postulated in every non-one or will for togetherness from a moment to the next. The scope of our lives seems to come through discourse where we learn of an external other that has an access to a part of the world we do not which retroactively makes our present world limited in scope to its properties.
How then in a more practical context do we understand potentials and affinity? One might understand a thingâs speed of togetherness as a thing's potentiality in practical terms, a catâs potentiality to be a machine is as much a part of it as to be an animal if we consider a robot cat a cat for example. The particular properties cat has an affinity for at any moment like being a feline might in contrast refer to a thingâs actuality. The two are combined when regimes of actuality pass back and forth through different regimes of potentiality. Knowledge of the truth in the essence analytic to a thing is being able to trace back and flow through this natural bidimensional trajectory of an object, Knowledge can be said to be the following and reconstitution of said specific trajectory upon which each thing becomes its other. Explanation is the chain of connection that makes each thing connect to its other.
Ethics
In the metaphysics of will for togetherness the good and the bad do not emerge immediately, but they do emerge eventually in the course of will for togetherness outward expansion. Since every will for togetherness will realize a relation to every other will for togetherness which constitutes its identity, and the good is among these wills for togetherness then every will for togetherness will at some point become good. Since every individual is the whole and the whole includes the good, and the good is itself an individual the question of whether anything is good is a closed question from the perspective of eternity. Since goodness is eternally a property of the world as everything in the world shares a single property, ethics in non-monism never really becomes a question of goodness for the whole world but only goodness for the individual since goodness is a property of a least one thing at every moment but only in the moment in which an individual gives itself to the good and the good to said individual wills for togetherness. Ethics in for the will for togetherness metaphysic pertains then to trajectories by which each individual incarnates these events of goodness. Applying the epistemology, we can explicate goodness by addressing and understanding its twofold dimensions of potential slash scope and affinity slash recurrent inferentially strong properties slash actuality. However, if good is a non-one then it seems reasonable to suspect bad is too. Meaning then ethics should actually be a twofold understanding of the affinities and speed of both good and bad. However, these trajectories of good and bad are always also relative to the particular wills for togetherness which pass through them, what may be a trajectory of good for some wills for togetherness can in kind displace others into the trajectory of the bad.