ONTOLOGY COMES BACK WITH POLARITY

TOWARD AN ESSENTIALIST INTEGRAL THEORY
BY
GIORGIO PIACENZA CABRERA

ONTOLOGY COMES BACK WITH POLARITY

Our theoretical concepts on whether the nature of reality is mental or material, spiritual or material, subjective or objective(and all combinations thereof) may improve by realizing the interplay between our perceptions of Identity (that which is) and polarity (dualistic, comparative thinking in contrast with Non Duality). In fact, polarity requires Identity to occur and I believe that while operating with a relative way of thinking and perceiving, Identity requires implied polar contrasts. Trying to reduce Identity to any kind of dualistic-contingent explanation derived from polar thinking leads to paradoxes and to partial, reductionist positions to which different thinkers -inclined by their biases and levels of cognitive inclusivity- emotionally and existentially attach themselves to. Understanding each fundamental element in an adequate perspective may restore order to centuries of important but partial philosophical discoveries without a Meta Integrative pattern.

In a sui generis polar analysis conducted by Archie J. Bahm, polar opposites are modeled along axes representing a dialectic interplay of characteristics similar to Ken Wilber's quadratic distribution in his AQAL Model. As I mentioned in other articles, Bahm arrives to this via deduction, thus strengthening a rational method and Wilber arrives to his findings essentially via induction, thus strengthening an empiricist method. This occurs even when (due to the prevailing academic ethos of our modern-postmodern times) the scientific method, analytic philosophy and influential post modernist thinkers prioritize the concrete world of experience.

Bahm used a polar category called "Spirit" and its complementary called "Matter" to generate with a dialectical polar analysis of mutually necessary, interpenetrating polar opposites, eight well recognized Metaphysical Positions.

Identity, simply understood as that which is can also be understood as self-referring. A=A is and is self referring. Identity can also be understood as undivided wholeness. These two understandings correspond to Bahm's "Spiritual" polar extreme (on the left side of an horizontal line in his complementary polarities cross diagram of Metaphysical positions) and also to Bahm's "Vedanta" polar extreme (on the upper extreme of the vertical line in the same diagram), representing the unqualified monism or oneness behind the spirit-matter duality and phenomena. In Wilber's scheme, the "Spiritual" polar extreme corresponds to "Interiority" and Bahm's "Vedanta" corresponds to the Oneness behind seeming divisions which in AQAL can be understood as the fundamental corner of "Individuality" (or that which is indivisible). In my view, these two are the essential polar positions and quadrants which come closer to an ontological understanding of the Non Duality subjacent in our epistemological ability to understand the Identity Principle and all conceivably possible dualistic contrasts, associations and comparisons.

Without the (formally recognized or not) Identity Principle (whether thus called or not) strict forms of logic wouldn't be available. The (strong excluded middle, classical) "Either-or logic," the (implicit or dialectic) "Both-and logic," and (in relation to an Absolute Unqualifiable as in the approximations of Negative Theology and Advaita)"Neither-neither logic" wouldn't be possible.

All the variations in the Indian Catuskoti and Buddhist Madhyamaka logics wouldn't be possible. While Nagarjuna didn't reject non contradiction he used it to reach the limits of thought and from his thinking various versions appeared. For example, there's an orthodox version leading to a total negation of all phenomena, (including the self and even of this orthodox view of total negation), except for the implicit recognition of that which allowed the negation process in the first place. Even if negation of the orthodox view itself opens up to non nihilist possibilities, there’s a more clear tradition that involves finally asserting an Absolute Self. It is an important dissenting, little known and less nihilistic heterodox version within Madhyamaka and Mahayana Buddhism called "Chengton" or "Jonang" Madhyamaka that accepts that the Absolute is not empty of itself. Importantly, this latter view would be more compatible with my essentialist view of dependent origination, with Indian Vedanta and with Western Non Dual understandings of the Absolute.

When duality appears as a way of thinking and of being contrast and comparison also appear since now we are capable of conceiving the opposites of the aforementioned fundamental polar extremes. This is when (as an opposite to "Identity") we conceive of the "Other" and as an opposite to "Vedanta" (actually representing "Oneness" and "Individuality") we conceive of "Dualism" (also corresponding to the "Collective" Dimension of Existence or Plurality in Wilber's model. Now, from the dualistic perspective of all phenomena that manifest as simultaneous parts and wholes, the FOUR POLAR EXTREMES (corresponding to the FOUR DIMENSIONS OR CORNERS OF THE KOSMOS in AQAL), arise in an inevitable simultaneous way. Thus, all eventities, all epistemologically recognizable items of existence under a dualistic appreciation, simultaneously display Spirit-Interiority, its opposite Matter-Exteriority; Oneness-Individuality and its opposite Duality-Plurality (two or more is a collective).

Dualistic dichotomic thinking privileges on plausible explanation over another within the cross of Metaphysical Explanations. Extreme Materialists come to deny their own subjective existence unless it can be understood in objective terms. Extreme Idealists and spiritualists come to deny the existence of an objective material world. As noted by Archie J. Bahm and Ken Wilber the preferences extend worldwide over the centuries and many influential thinkers. Everyone seems to hold on tight to their epistemological preferences. Many possible Metaphysical positions have also been intelligently questioned using the powers of reason to blindly favor partial views. This questioning may change with cultural evolution and if more persons reach Integral levels of functioning as Wilber appears to suggest. I hope so. But I also hope that the Theory accompanying integral levels of cognitive and self identity functioning is also open to being corrected from its blind spots.

Regardless of that, let us continue. For simplicity's sake let's call the left quadrants Interior, the self-referent intransferable, subjective isness, Bahm's Spiritualism "Identity." Let's call its Exterior, Material, Objective opposite "Otherness." Let's simply call Bahm's "Vedanta" pole (and Wilber's "Individual" corner) "Oneness." Finally, let's simply call Bahm's "Dualism" (the metaphysical concept) corresponding to Wilber's "Collective" corner of the Kosmos "Plurality"

After considering that -without duality- "Identity" and "Oneness" represent the Absolute and borrowing and idea from Aristotle and from Thomas Aquinas about God as Pure Act or Purely Actual and about Matter as Potential, I correspondingly consider the Identity-Interior Pole as Actual and the Exterior as Potential. This is because the Identity-Interior Pole is our epistemological and ontological connection with the Absolute. Now, when this connection arises together with a polar opposite (the Other-Matter), experience becomes constrained into contingency. The simple freedom of Being or "isness" represented by the pole of Oneness-Individuality also becomes constrained by the manyness of plurality. Thus, experience within involuting and evolving holonic forms takes over.

I consider the two poles of relative existence (Duality-Plurality-Collectivity) and (The Other-Exteriority-Matter) as "virtual" poles. These are poles needed for the manifestation of Interior actuality as or under the constraints of possibility or potentiality. These poles are necessary for the process of manifestation but ultimately they are APPEARANCES of the possibilities contained within the Absolute. Among these possibilities is the possibility of denial of the Absolute because we can always conceive of its opposite as equally important. Nonetheless, all conceptions, whether as affirmations or their denials simply ARE; that is, they are grounded in an unqualifiable that is represented by Identity and Oneness.

Virtual opposites (Exteriority and Multiplicity) are a necessity of dual conception. They are not essential. They generate the appearance of the concrete within potentiality. They are a medium to actualize within illusion, since what is Real is already absolutely Actual. Unqualifiable subjective experience cannot be explained in terms of exterior objective associations and comparisons. Its essence escapes even mental objects associated with experience and as Pure Subjectivity is unqualifiable.

That which is materially exterior and affects interior experience also affects or causally connects mental objects associated with subtle states of matter. Within duality, exteriority is of equal importance to interiority, but not within the Non Dual Essence. In regards to the mind-body relation and -more specifically- in relation to subjectivity, under the appearances of dualism, the causal closure of the physical realm is not violated.

I'm quite certain that there are degrees of Reality and illusion across the realms of Being described by various spiritual Traditions. I think that the greater the degree of Interiority in relation to the degree of Exteriority, the more Real is the Realm of expression. This would be because the Essential, Unqualified Absolute is actualizing less the exterior appearances of "His" possibilities and these realms would be less mired in the patterns of multiplicity and otherness. Therefore, Pure Actuality can manifest less impeded and exteriority (the objective, an exterior form of matter) would conform more to the primacy of Interior Will.

I envision a mutuality of influence between less real, more exteriorly invested evolving ontological realms and more real, less exteriorly invested involving and evolving ontological realms. I think that all realms participate in degrees of contingency and mutually affect each other, not just from the "top down" but also from the "bottom up." There may not simply be pre-given, pre established, fixed or unchanging ontological realms "out there" (as Ken Wilber appears to emphasize in his "Post Metaphysical" turn) but changing, evolving-involving contingent ontological realms. In another essay I'll try to develop how inter-realm relations could be like.

Just as all relative things, events or occasions form or structure themselves as holons (which are part-wholes that may also include other existential complementary opposites)and, just as all holons form more and less inclusive hierarchies, we can assume that the fundamental polar opposites of "Identity"-"Otherness" and "Individuality"-Plurality" can form hierarchies in relation to what they represent. They represent Reality as Such and reality qualified because "Identity" and "Oneness" represent the Absolute and their conceivable, relative complementary opposites ("Otherness" and "Plurality") represent an illusory denial of the Absolute (the Absolute understood as that which is). Thus, hierarchies distributing greater and lesser degrees of "Identity" vs. "Otherness" (or "Interiority" vs. "Exteriority") and of "Oneness"-Plurality" distribute greater and lesser degrees of "Reality" vs. "Appearance." They are rationally conceivable and even of necessity required. These fundamental opposites contain the possibility of generating degrees of Reality.

In this hierarchical manifestation, the Absolute, that which is essential, sustains the illusory poles, the realms of manifestation and the appearance of change and movement in the Kosmos. The Absolute gives actuality to the appearance.

I'm also quite inclined to think that the mysterious quantum aspects such as uncertainty, tunneling, entanglement and even retrocausality as well as the flexibility of space and time within General Relativity will be found to be connected with inter realm relations. Perhaps predictability in Physics will be found to be connected with a fundamental interplay between inherent and explicit degrees of actuality and potentiality first understandable via philosophical reasoning processes.

These kinds of "essentialist" understandings are necessary to establish Integral Theory as an ethically grounded force that can ideologically counteract the global descent into a relativistic and individualistic culture of material values and entertainment into which the new generations must situate themselves to develop into adulthood. Essentialist understandings are necessary to re establish philosophy's lost credibility on a sound basis and to counteract the excesses of Post Modern thinking consciously or unconsciously influencing globalized societies at large. If the Theory surrenders to the explicit and implicit Spirit-denying aspects of modern and post modern society by focusing too much upon Exterior empirical evidence to the detriment of rational a prioris springing from the priority of Interiority and Oneness, it may not develop sufficient ideological grounding and coherence to establish a believable reason for individuals to evolve into truly being more Integral, loving and inclusive.