I continue developing this project I have of resolving the ancient,
classic and crucial problem of the One and the Many. This is the second
article dedicated to the problem. I should inform the reader that this
is a project that I took up in the 1990s as a student of Philosophy. I
earned the degree of a Licentiate (approximately a M.S. in the US) in
2001 with a Master's Thesis titled, "The Tridynamic Metaphysic. A
Solution to the Problem of the One and the Many." (There's a mistake in
the title, it's not a "solution" but a "resolution", very different things.)
Since then I have written over 1000 pages in 12 or 14
articles (depending how you count them) and am satisfied that the work
is substantially done. It started as a doctoral thesis and has continued
as a passion and I feel, a calling to address this difficult issue
because so much depends on it. What? The mystery of being and of "God",
if there is such a thing, and the human person's place and role in this
complex and fascinating reality, which is our Universe. There is a copyright pending on all my work.
What is reality, as such? Is it really a One, that is, a Whole, or is it
a myriad of parts (atoms, sub-atomic particles, planets, solar systems,
galaxies...)? Which aspect is the greater: the One or the many parts?
Is it the many that produce the One, so that the One is really the sum
of the parts, like a fully assembled bicycle? Or maybe it's the other
way around: the One is principally what causes the parts to exist, as in
the living body of an animal, where heart and feet could not live apart
from the body, though the body could possibly live apart from some of
its members? The One and the Many could also be that of a continuum of
moments within a single process, such as the riddle about the precedence
of the chicken and the egg in the conundrum we considered in the first
reflection. Let's review it briefly.
In my last post, I mused, tongue in cheek, over the very difficult and
profound philosophical problem:
Which comes first: the chicken or the egg?
Well, the chicken and the egg are elements within the plurality of the chicken species, and express diverse moments in the species's propagation. Seen that way, I discovered that this plurality cannot exist except under a preexisting oneness. The chicken species comes first, before the individual members and moments of the species's propagation. It cannot come afterward as a tardy second, for it would arrive too late, cancelling the existence of the individual members: the One or Whole of the chicken species necessarily must preexist individual members and their eggs.
Then I discovered that the reasoning that applies to the process of many chickens and eggs propagating the species also applies to the coexistence of fish and sea, and also, more generally, for any two arbitrarily chosen realities, there must preexist a common sameness or one by which their differences can exist without contradiction; otherwise these could not exist.(This is the Principle of Metaphysical Induction.)
In other words, ANY plurality, whether its elements occur over time or at the same time, implies the preexistence of a common sameness so that the differences given among the members of the plurality can exist. ANY plurality exists ONLY within a preexisting one. We could think of this reasoning as a sort of working back from effects, to a common cause;
although this procedure is more general than the so called "Principle of Causality". Rather, this is a "METAPHYSICAL INDUCTION" whereby from the being of differences, I believe that we are compelled to conclude in the preexistence of a common sameness and oneness that makes differences not only possible, but real, existent.
All of which begs the question, "What is this oneness?!" It seems
reasonable to say that chicken and egg give us grounds for asserting the
preexistence of a chicken species. But for any two different things in
general? For a clod of mud underfoot and a cloud in the sky, or a piece
of moon rock and a love sonnet composed by Shakespeare, what common
sameness allowing for their extreme differences can there be? Answer:
being! What Shakespeare's sonnet, the moon rock, the cloud and the clod
of mud have in common is that they have being, that they exist! This
thing we call "being" is quite a beast! It is both that common to each
individual, and that by which the individuals are different from each
other. Again, being is anything insofar as resisting nothingness (which
is the absolute privation of being, the contradictory of being). By the
same token, being is anything insofar as it is an effective presence,
precisely because it resists nothingness.
But this is no progress at all! From asking "What is this oneness that
necessarily preexists a given plurality?", I have simply raised other
questions no less enigmatic. "What is being?" and "Does there really
exist any 'stuff' such as this 'being', that can be common to things so
wildly different as a love sonnet and clod of mud?" It seems they are
too different to share a common 'stuff' by which to justify tagging them
all with one label, "being", as if it were a given that were common to
such disparate realities. What can possibly be this "stuff", this
"being"? Might it not be a projection of our minds over things, rather
any "stuff" in the things themselves?
And I answered in the preceding article affirming that, yes, the One is
being, but in my defense, I point out that I have not just answered a
riddle with another riddle. I have advanced this reflection by
establishing a necessary connection between the being of the many with
the oneness, principle of their differences; i.e., I believe I have
shown that the one is being.
The discourse on being is in philosophical circles called "Ontology":
"ontos" is Greek for "being", "logos" is Greek for "word" or
"discourse". So "Ontology" is the word or discourse on being. A certain
philosopher and historian, Giovanni Reale (RIP), has also joined the
Greek term for "one", "hen", to coin the term "Henology": the discourse
on the One. What I did was to show that Henology and Ontology are
materially the same investigation, though under a different optic, the
one focusing on the unity of the whole, the other on being. Ontology is a
deep subject, to which I hope to return later. For this post, I want to
return to the one and try to figure out more fully its nature.
Is there a "highest" one? Is there a one that encloses all the other
ones and manys, so that there is nothing else necessarily preexisting
the highest one? (Is there an all-pervading "God"?) Many individuals
imply the metaphysical induction of a one so that the individuals can
exist in their differences (as the existence of chickens imply the
existence of the chicken species). But these ones may be different among
themselves, too, and form their own plurality or many, over which there
must necessarily preexist still higher ones so that this higher many
can exist in their differences.
What would happen if the higher ones not exist? All the manys or
pluralities under each one, which can exist only because they are under
their one, could not exist either. (The annihilation of the one destroys
the necessary condition for the existence of the many. We have seen it
and repeat ourselves. Eliminate the chickens species, and you have
eliminated the chickens and their eggs!)
So lets build a "tower" of ascending ones to see how far we can go. I
start with any pair of different things. It could be any two chickens.
These are different, but they cannot be absolutely different for reasons
already considered, namely, that they would have to exist in different
universes, themselves absolutely different; so different in fact that my
mind could not reach both of them because the oneness of my mind would
split in two: they would be unthinkable and absurd This compels the
"metaphysical induction": it forces me to say there necessarily
preexists a common sameness and oneness by which the chickens (or
whatever) both can coexist without an annihilation of all their
difference and diversity; in effect, their annihilation as individuals
and therefore as beings (that resist dilution into nothingness).
Okay, now what about this preexisting oneness: does it belong to a
plurality of other individuals? Either yes or no. If yes, then there is
nothing else different from it, opposing its being, so there are no more
metaphysical inductions to be made: we have reached the highest One
above which there is no other, and this argument is done because I have
proven that there is a highest one. So let's continue the argument
supposing that our one is part of a plurality (or a many) also.
I repeat the process: take our one and any one of the others among the
many different from it, and apply the metaphysical induction to discover
a still higher one preexisting the former, necessary for their
existing. Now, does this one belong to a plurality of other individuals
or not? Either yes or no. If yes, I've proven that there is a highest
one, and the argument is done. So suppose no, that this latest one is
part of plurality (or a many) also.
Now I continue reiterating this process to form an ascending chain of ever more comprehensive ones: it is a series starting from the pair of chickens (or whatever other two individuals the reader chose to start
with), and establishes the necessary existence of a first one, say "A1", without which the chickens (or whatever) could not exist. Then the process establishes the existence of a one, say, "A2", without which A1 could not exist. Then reiterating, an A3, without which A2 could not exist; and then A4, without which A3 could not exist... In fine, we have established a series of ones: A1, A2, A3,..., as necessary conditions for the existence of the first individuals, and each An ("n" representing a counting number: 1, 2, 3, ...) a necessary condition for the existence of previous one in the series.
Now I ask, does a "highest" one exist, an "An" for some particular
number n, which is highest in the series, and as such, has no other
individual different from it, "opposing" its being, forcing us to
reapply again the metaphysical induction to lengthen the series? Does a
highest An exist in the series of ascending ones that is not also a
member in a many or plurality?
Again, the answer is either yes or no.
If yes, I've arrived at an ultimate one, a unity that exists that is not
at all different from all other ones, and yet necessarily exists
(otherwise, none of the ones of the series or the chickens would exist).
In that case I have proven the existence of a highest one.
Continuing my argument, I presume no. So suppose that no highest An exists, that the indexing number n, in the series of An (A1, A2, A3,...) continues going higher on its merry way from 1, 2, 3,..., without ever stopping at a last member in the series. What would that imply? Quite simply, that the whole series of ones, and the chickens, too, do not exist!
Each An in the series is a precondition for the existence of the previous one in the series. That no highest An exist implies that none of the necessary conditions for each previous one in the series exist, implying that the whole chain cannot exist, implying that even the chickens do not exist. And that contradicts the existence of the two
realities from which the chain was induced. And this metaphysical induction is absolutely necessary, I believe I have established this principle of metaphysical induction in this and the previous article. So I have to reject the possibility of an unending ascending tower of concatenated ones.
Perforce, I conclude that there necessarily is a highest one, outside which there is nothing different from it. There is an ultimate unity that necessarily exists, and makes even the differences among individual things real. I am not ready to call this ultimate unity "God", but it nonetheless challenges the "faith" of the atheist who will not believe
in an ultimate reality.
So which comes first, the One or the Many? I ask the question in the
title of this post and now I answer: the ultimate One is absolutely
prior and above the Many, and also prior and above the individual and
different things. Sameness has ontological priority over differences
among things. A number of conclusions spill out from these reflections.
(1) The One is. Otherwise it could not be the origin of the being of the differences in things.
Put another way, Henology is the highest aspect of Ontology, but it is
part of the subject matter of Ontology.
(2) The One is unique (justifying the use of the term, "THE" in "the
One").
I should show this uniqueness more explicitly. Suppose that the One were
not unique. There would have to be another "One" different from the
former, so that applying metaphysical induction, there would exist a
still more ultimate one, an "Uber-One" over the One. But this would
contradict that the One is ultimate. Therefore, there cannot exist a one
different from the One. So the One is indeed unique, and the use of the
definite article, "the", justified.
(3) The One is above being. (Plato's ancient thesis. The One is higher
than other aspects of being, such as difference.)
(4) The One is actually infinite.
To grasp the infinitude of the One, observe that to be infinite is to
not be finite, which is to be unbounded, hence unlimited. If the One
were bounded, it would be different from what bounds it, contradicting
the ultimate oneness of the One. Since the One embraces all the
differences in things, it cannot be bounded and limited; hence, it is
infinite. Moreover, It cannot be "potentially infinite" (like the
counting numbers) because this kind of infinitude admits differences.
There can be no differences touching the One, which resolves them.
Therefore, the One realizes its infinitude NOW, ACTUALLY, not
potentially, not partially or in parts.
(5) The Principle of Metaphysical Induction in universally valid for all beings.
This is consistent with the uniqueness and infinitude of the One, but is inherent in the nature of metaphysical induction.
(6) The One is eternal.
This follows in a manner similar to the Infinitude of the One. The eternity of the One embraces differences over time, so all time (no less than place) coalesces in a single instant and locus in the One. This total self-possession and identification with its own being is the essence of eternity.
(7) The One is TRANSCENDENT: it is an effective presence within itself (in se, independent of the individuals comprising the many) and at the same time, it is within the constitution of each of the many.
This is the fundamental notion of Philosophy discovered by Plato in his "Second Navigation" (cf “Phaedo”, 99 D - 100 A 7); and ever since provokes scandal among materialists of all stripes. It implies that reality per se is fundamentally spiritual. If the one of the species of chicken were entirely in this bird here but not in that other bird or egg over there, then the differences among them would vanish, and they would cease existing, at least with their differences, which is absurd. So the one in this case cannot be trapped entirely within a single individual for that would fragment the one itself, cancelling its unifying effect in the plurality of the many. On the other hand, the effective presence of the one cannot be circumscribed within the one in se, for again, the many would vanish. Therefore, the one's presence must be effective within the one in se, making it separate from the individual members, and at the same time effectively present within the constitutive being of each member. That is an astonishing calisthenic: effective action at a distance. Who says quantum physics is strange? Being and the one are at least as mysterious.
(8) The absolutely infinite and ultimate One is irreducibly diverse from all other beings in virtue of its being actually infinite while all other being is necessarily finite.
This is a difficult conclusion. The ultimate one is absolutely diverse from finite beings, yet it is the necessary principle of sameness by which all finite beings can coexist, even being so different among themselves. Yet, in the next article I shall try to show that there is a structural continuum between finite being and infinite being.
(9) The absolutely infinite One is absolutely independent (transcends) the many.
In conclusion (7), we defined the notion of transcendence. In conclusion (9), my idea is to emphasize what is probably already clear: that the ultimate One cannot be limited or acted upon by any other being. If such were to happen, it would be a limiting of the One, a conditioning of the being of the One; but this would contradict the infinity of the One. Hence, I conclude that:
(10) The ultimate One is "God", absolute and supreme being.
I believe that these conclusions and the philosophical methodology that gave issue to them seriously challenge atheism, agnosticism, relativism, and materialism.
That does not mean that I think I'm out of the woods. I must explain the inner structure of being and the emergence of reality from the One. How does the One thrust finite realities into existence without reducing them to nothingness or reducing itself into something finite (limited by what it creates)? What is the structure of this thing called "being", the primary characteristic of which is to resist its own dissolution into nothingness, that allows it at once to be one and many? Allows it, I say, to underlie the essences of all things, however diverse? I shall try to find convincing answers to these questions.