From: jimruttshow8596
Forrest Landry’s Immanent Metaphysics delves into the fundamental nature of reality and the relationship between self and reality [00:02:37]. This framework, which began discussion in November 2020 on episode 96, continues to be explored, providing a review of its core concepts [00:01:12]. Landry’s work is accessible on his website [00:01:48].
Fundamental Inquiry: Self and Reality
Metaphysics starts as an inquiry into the nature of the relationship between self and reality [00:02:37]. This relationship is considered the essence of its study [00:02:44]. The “self” in this context refers to a historical notion, particularly the “plane of perception,” which acts as a rhetorical device [00:03:00]. On one side is everything perceived, and on the other, the self doing the perception, encompassing subjective experience and consciousness [00:03:09].
The relationship between the subjective and the objective is considered ontologically real and worthy of study [00:04:40]. This relationship can be viewed as that between the measure and the measured, similar to the scientific method where measurement is a fundamental concept [00:04:56]. The ontological process of making a measurement or observation is the grounding basis for identifying something’s existence [00:05:49]. Existence, reality, or objectivity are asserted if there can be an interaction, measurement, observable aspect, and repeatability [00:06:41]. The notion of interaction is prior to concepts like “exists,” “real,” or “objective” [00:07:11].
Perceiver, Perceived, and Perceiving
These three concepts overlap [00:07:29]:
- Perceiver: The observer [00:07:31].
- Perceiving: The process of perception itself [00:07:38].
- Perceived: The content of the perception [00:07:39].
Perception can be modeled as a communication channel where a “signal producing world” sends a signal through a channel to a “self” on the receiving end [00:08:07].
Choice, Causality, and Process
The concept of choice is central to Landry’s work [00:08:41]. Choice in the subjective realm is compared to causality in the objective realm [00:08:47]. The notion of self is characterized in terms of choice [00:09:05].
- Determinism vs. Causality: Mathematical knowledge can have a deterministic character, fully specified infinitely [00:10:12]. Scientific knowledge, however, is of a causal nature and doesn’t require infinite specification [00:10:18].
- Indeterminism/Randomness vs. Choice: Perfect randomness is often considered meaningless [00:12:10]. Choice, conversely, is meaningful to the person making it, even if not evidentially meaningful to others [00:12:13].
- Irreducible Randomness: In complex systems like the brain, predictability is limited due to sensitivity to initial conditions [00:13:01]. After factoring out all predictable elements (like information compression), there’s a residual unpredictable randomness [00:14:32]. From an objective viewpoint, choices might appear to come from randomness [00:15:15]. However, from the subjective, first-person perspective, choices have a meaningful context [00:15:22].
- Duality: The notion of choice and causation are considered “duals” of one another [01:16:22]. Causation is a mesoscopic/macroscopic pattern, while choice is an absence of patterns from an objective view, but subjectively meaningful [01:17:05].
The universe contains “stuff about creation, stuff about existence, and stuff about interaction” [01:46:11]. Interaction is considered more fundamental than existence, and even more fundamental than creation [01:46:11].
Realism and Idealism
The relationship between realism and idealism is described as more primal than both realism or idealism themselves [01:16:16].
- Realist Perspective: Presupposes the existence of “stuff” and then considers interactions between it [00:29:17]. This perspective is based on causation and is typical for developing science and technology [00:29:29]. It suggests “first there is matter, and then maybe there is mind” as an epiphenomenon [00:30:46].
- Idealist Perspective: Assumes the subjective observer as primary [00:29:39]. The existence of anything is contingent on an observer’s capacity to apprehend it [00:29:51]. It suggests “first there is mind, and then we can maybe know that there is matter” [00:30:41].
The notion of interaction as a process is more primary than both the perceiver and the perceived [00:31:14]. Epistemology (how we know) is the basis of ontology (what exists) [00:31:33]. The relationship between epistemology and ontology, which is a dynamic, is how we come to have the concept of real things or a self-observing entity [00:31:54].
The Concept of Process
The term “process” in this context includes more than its normal use [00:34:22]. While ordinarily referring to changes of state over time (like in computer science where processes are often assumed deterministic), Landry’s use includes probabilities and possibilities [00:35:06]. It builds in a kind of indeterminism not always obvious in typical usage [00:36:46].
Core Philosophical Development
The metaphysics is based on two key ideas: foundational triplication and type isomorphism [00:37:43].
Foundational Triplication
This idea models all that is real as having a foundation in at least three essential concepts [00:37:52]. These concepts are inseparable, yet mutually distinct [00:38:03]. When examining any field of study, there are always at least three primal concepts necessary for its basis [00:41:17].
Examples:
- Universe: Creation, Existence, and Interaction [01:17:19].
- Language: Statements, Semantics, and Syntax [00:41:43]. If any of these is completely absent, the other two are also absent [00:43:24].
- Music: Intensity, Pattern/Structure (Melody and Harmony), and Tonality (Instrument sound/pitch) [00:42:32]. These can be varied independently, but if one is absent, the others are too [00:43:13].
- Real (as a domain): Choice, Change, and Causation [00:59:52].
- Perception: Perceiver, Perceived, and Perceiving [01:01:23].
- Space-time: Space, Time, and Possibility [01:06:36].
Type Isomorphism
This idea considers that the essential concepts of each domain have similar patterns of correspondence [00:38:13]. When examining the relationships between primal concepts in different domains, a consistent underlying “template pattern” emerges [00:43:52]. This allows for identifying “types” of individual concepts across different domains [00:49:14].
The Modalities
The “types” of primal concepts are referred to as modalities [00:46:40]. The three modalities are:
- Imminent: Has a very direct, immediate, first-person process notion [01:05:40]. Often represents a relationship between two other concepts, or a zero/one context [01:02:08]. Corresponds to a first-person relationship [01:05:59].
- Omniscient: Represents something one framework removed, like observing a static pattern from a remote position [01:02:25]. This implies knowing all aspects, even if not being that thing oneself [01:03:41]. Corresponds to a third-person relationship [01:06:01].
- Transcedent: Even more removed, another framework away, representing a relationship between domains of context altogether [01:03:48]. It’s a semantic notion not directly measurable, like abstract mathematical concepts [01:07:30]. Corresponds to a second-person relationship [01:06:03].
Exact, closed definitions cannot be given for the modalities, as their meaning is implicit in the axioms and their theorems, often expressed metaphorically [01:10:01].
Examples of Modality Mappings:
| Domain | Imminent | Omniscient | Transcendent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Universe | Interaction [00:46:27] | Existence [00:59:09] | Creation [00:59:19] |
| Language | Statements [00:59:12] | Syntax [00:59:19] | Semantics [00:59:22] |
| Real | Change [01:00:24] | Causation [01:00:28] | Choice [01:00:32] |
| Perception | Perceiving [01:01:42] | Perceived [01:01:40] | Perceiver [01:01:37] |
| Space-time | Time [01:06:42] | Space [01:06:40] | Possibility [01:06:45] |
The Axioms
The axioms describe the patterns of relationships between the foundational concepts of a domain [00:49:02].
Axiom 1: Imminent is more fundamental than the Omniscient and/or the Transcendent
This axiom states that the imminent modality is more fundamental than the omniscient and/or transcendent modalities [01:11:03]. Additionally, the omniscient and transcendent are “conjugate” [01:11:13].
- Conjugation: This refers to a hyperbolic relationship, where dynamics in one domain induce phenomena in the other, like electric and magnetic fields, or time and frequency domains [01:11:41]. In language, if much effort is spent on semantics, syntax might be harder to construct, and vice-versa [01:13:00]. There’s a trade-off in the degree of clarity between the two [01:14:19]. This relational concept is the imminent modality [01:14:41].
- Imminent Fundamentalness: For the example of language, statements (imminent) are more fundamental than syntax (omniscient) and semantics (transcendent) because one cannot talk about semantics or syntax without making use of statements [01:17:01]. The definition of a term is itself a statement [01:18:20].
Axiom 1 represents a “third person perspective” on theory, focusing on the structure of concepts and their relationships in a domain [01:42:27].
Axiom 2: A class of the transcendent precedes an instance of the imminent; a class of the imminent precedes an instance of the omniscient; and a class of the omniscient precedes an instance of the transcendent
Understanding Axiom 2 is considered one of the most difficult aspects of this metaphysics [01:19:27]. It requires shifting from the domain of theory (third-person perspective) to the domain of practice (first-person perspective) [01:19:51].
- Choice as a Process: To have a choice, three things are needed: a range of things to choose from (potentials), an actual selection event, and a consequence [01:20:44]. The choice must be distinguishable from a non-choice, implying an irreversible consequence that manifests in the real world [01:21:23].
- Flow from Potentiality to Actuality: Choice is analogous to creation itself, an emergence from potential to actual [01:23:56].
- Class of Transcendent to Instance of Imminent: The range of potentials (e.g., choices for an evening) is a “class of the transcendent” [01:28:43]. The actual selection event (e.g., deciding to read a book) is an “instance of the imminent” [01:28:43].
- Class of Imminent to Instance of Omniscient: The “consequence” of a choice is not a single event but a multiplicity of smaller, component choices (e.g., picking the book, chair, turning pages) [01:29:06]. This “class of the imminent” (multiplicity of selections) results in a “singularity of consequence” (an instance of the omniscient, like the memory of reading a book) [01:30:31]. Causality is always a plurality of antecedents to a plurality of consequences [01:31:01].
- Class of Omniscient to Instance of Transcendent: The potentiality for choice (e.g., having the option to read a book) is contingent upon a multiplicity of prior consequences or outcomes [01:31:46]. Each possibility is contingent on prior outcomes, moving from a “class of the omniscient” to a single instance of the transcendent [01:32:40].
Axiom 2 describes a circular flow of plural to singular: potentiality (class of transcendent) → selection (instance of imminent) → consequence (instance of omniscient) → new potentiality (instance of transcendent, but a class for the next cycle). It depicts an ongoing process of making choices [01:32:55]. It’s a first-person experience, accounting for randomness and the fact that theory doesn’t perfectly predict practice [01:44:07].
Axiom 3: The classes and instances of the Imminent, Omniscient, and Transcendent are distinct, inseparable, and non-interchangeable
This axiom is closely aligned with the idea of foundational triplication [01:37:59]. It states that one cannot truly understand any one of the fundamental concepts of a domain without implying or incorporating some understanding or assumption of the other two [01:37:30]. For example, understanding the concept of “universe” requires understanding creation, existence, and interaction, and vice-versa [01:37:46].
Axiom 3 corresponds to a “second person perspective,” mediating between Axiom 1 (theory) and Axiom 2 (practice) [01:45:37]. It’s about the “soundness relationship” — the peerage between different domains’ foundations [01:46:09].
Relationship Between Axioms and Modalities
There is a mapping between the modalities and the axioms themselves [01:38:24]:
- Axiom 1 has the nature of the Omniscient modality [01:40:56]. It’s like viewing a photograph, a framework removed from the immediate experience [01:42:21]. It describes the structure of concepts and their theoretical relationships [01:43:08].
- Axiom 2 has the nature of the Imminent modality [01:40:59]. As process, it’s a first-person perspective, directly involving the subjective experience of making choices [01:43:20].
- Axiom 3 has the nature of the Transcendent modality [01:41:04]. It represents a second-person perspective, like a conversation between different domains or embedding contexts [01:46:07].
This correspondence allows the metaphysics to be self-describing through the connection of its axioms and modalities [01:38:31]. It can describe the process of describing itself [01:39:12]. The axioms and modalities inclusively “close over” the subjective and objective, encompassing the describer, the thing described, and the process of description itself [01:40:04].
The axioms can describe their own relationships, meaning the pattern can describe the pattern [01:48:08]. This moves metaphysics beyond mere theory to an actual first-hand ontological experience [01:36:33].