The Ontological Contradiction (from Postulates and Empty Spaces) ('14)
Though the evidence from Kant's dialectics suggest that substance, that-which-is, causality, is accidental; and furthermore, that, if substance is accidental, indigenous meaning inhering in substance is unlikely; it also then becomes true that a question arises as to the practicality of interrogating the posited null set around inherent meaning in substance, that-which-is, from the side of complete and total immersion in substance/causality; and if meaning is seen to inhere in the possible meaningless or not; or if the beyond-us which must be antecedent to all-that-is necessitates a practical cognitive withdrawal.
If substance/causality is an accident, then it is also necessarily the result of a contingency, or strictly speaking, the contingent; the non-existence of substance subsisted as a possibility. What inheres in the contingent is the possibility of non-existence; yet accidents/contingencies are, or tend to be, contained and delimited by/within discrete successions within increments of time; the possibility, within contingencies, of non-existence, conditioned by an antithetical result (existence), seems also to necessitate discretion, discrete successions in which a change occurred (non-existence into existence). But all-that-is, substance, causality, necessarily always was and will be; time creates a formal condition of indiscretion, and endless series of successions. The Ontological Contradiction built into Kant's dialectics is this- substance/causality cannot be involved in contingency, or it would cease to be what it is (self-sufficient, permanent), which is impossible; yet, if substance/causality is an accident, it must have contingency in its economy as a hinge towards involvement, in some succession somewhere.
Introductory Notes Towards a Phenomenology: The Meta-Rational
being of things consists not of our notions of them, nor our ideations of them;
nor do things consist of the Kantian thing-in-itself or as independent entities;
rather things consist of the balancing link between the thing-in-itself and our
ideations of the thing-in-itself. The balance between these two points of
consciousness cannot be perceived alone; what is needed to comprehend it is a
sense of the meta-rational. The meta-rational is not, like the irrational,
posited against the rational; rather, it is the step beyond mere rationality,
the point at which foreign elements become important to consciousness.
-There is space between time, space between space, and
space between causes.
-This space between is, in one sense, an intuition.
-Space Between, in this sense, is an intuition of Being.
-Space Between cannot be named except as such; naming
entails a certain confinement.
-Space Between can possess us between thoughts.
-Space Between may be seen as an extension of the
principle “Negative Capability” beyond aesthetics.
-Space Between, in fact, may be seen as what
consciousness is between thoughts.
-Space Between in the selfness of what is beyond us.
-Space Between, as transcendent will, is solid being
congealed in a momentary sensation.
-The mind must divide originally because the body itself
is a plurality.
-The mind’s structure finds its mirror in the body’s
plurality; but the mind’s wholeness is not self-apparent.
-The body is plural, yet it moves together; the mind is
plural and moves plurally; that is, it is capable of moving in many directions
-The mind moving the body is conscious thought; the body
moving the mind is unconscious impulse (thought).