From: jimruttshow8596
Forrest Landry’s work, referred to as “Immanent Philosophy” or “Immanent Metaphysics” (spelled I-M-M-A-N-E-N-T), is a deep dive into foundational ideas [01:03:00], [01:07:00]. Unlike some philosophical traditions, it is not about making up beliefs or asking for faith, but rather a serious attempt to build an understanding of the universe from basic fundamentals [01:51:00], [01:58:00]. The website version of Landry’s work is considered more readable and advanced than his book [01:14:00].
Why Immanent Metaphysics?
Landry undertakes this work to address important choices in the world today, including existential risk and civilization design [02:47:00], [02:52:00]. These areas relate to ethical concerns and values, necessitating an understanding of the nature of choice itself [02:57:00]. The goal is to develop a sensible, grounded, and functional approach to choice-making at community levels, which requires clear concepts of goodness, choice, and a basic methodology for knowing anything at all [03:36:00], [03:40:00], [03:48:00]. This work aims to enable better design and choice-making, both individually and collectively [04:13:00], [04:16:00].
Definition of Metaphysics
Landry defines metaphysics more crisply and narrowly than the historical philosophical tradition, which often delves into theology [04:29:00], [04:50:00]. He views it as an inquiry into the nature of the relation between self and reality [04:59:00], or more briefly, the interaction between the subjective and the objective [05:06:00].
Historically, metaphysics addresses two primary questions: “What is?” (ontology, study of existence and being) and “How do we know?” (epistemology, nature of knowledge and consciousness) [05:28:00], [06:05:00]. Other branches, like axiology (what’s valuable) and aesthetics (what’s beautiful), extend from this metaphysical premise [06:20:00]. Landry asserts that the relationship between the subjective and objective is real, forming the basis for understanding perception and choice [06:54:00], [07:10:00].
Instead of prioritizing the perceived (objective) or the perceiver (subjective), Landry considers the process of perceiving as more fundamental [07:30:00], [07:39:00]. This means ontology and epistemology are attached to perceiving itself [07:42:00]. He distinguishes between “exist,” “be real,” and “be objective,” noting that these are three distinct claims often overlapped in philosophical literature [09:55:00], [10:06:00]. The relationship between the subjective and objective is treated as its own ontological class, more fundamental than either the perceiver or the perceived [10:57:00], [11:06:00].
Key Concepts
Self
In Landry’s work, “self” is defined as the product of all choices one has made and all choices one could make [13:09:00], [13:15:00]. This encompasses memory (past choices) and capabilities (future choices), viewed as a product space that increases dimensionality by including both actuality and potentiality [15:15:00], [15:32:00]. The notion of self is characterized in terms of choice, similar to how causation characterizes the objective [15:09:00].
Interaction vs. Relation
Landry distinguishes between relation and interaction:
- Relation: A-temporal, without time. Mathematics, for example, studies structures of relationships without requiring a temporal element [31:00:00]. If a mathematical proof is true, it is always true [31:13:00]. Mathematics is seen as the study of pure relationship [31:46:00].
- Interaction: Inherently has a temporal element [31:50:00]. This includes the flow of information from the objective to the subjective, as in scientific experimentation [32:14:00]. Interaction implies concepts like temporality, information flow, and alternative possibilities [32:46:00]. Landry posits that an observer is implied in the notion of interaction [34:46:00]. He argues that interaction is more fundamental than the notion of existence, as one must interact to verify existence [40:28:00].
Reifying Power
“Reifying power” refers to the ability of concepts to clarify vague relationships and make them more distinct [52:44:00]. It’s about taking a vague idea and giving it more structure or definiteness [51:50:00]. Landry uses “reifying power” in a positive sense, as a measure of how useful a concept or metaphysics is in gaining understanding and making better choices [55:17:00], [57:19:00]. A powerful metaphor, for instance, connects widely disconnected concepts strongly and immediately, increasing insight [54:40:00], [55:03:00]. This allows for constructing the “power of metaphor” itself [55:00:00]. The “incommensuration theorem” and ethics are examples of concepts demonstrating this reifying power in his work [50:49:00], [51:19:00].
Perception and Reality
Perception doesn’t necessarily provide perfect information about what is perceived or the perceiver [08:08:00], [08:16:00]. Landry argues that of the three phenomena — perceiver, perceived, and perceiving — perception can only truly perceive the perceived [09:13:00]. He contrasts with Kant, who rejected metaphysics because perception couldn’t give perfect information about the objective [09:44:00]. For Landry, the perception is real, and the perceived is something we come to know through the vehicle of perception [39:50:00]. He suggests that interaction is more fundamental than existence, as establishing existence requires perception, which is a type of interaction [40:28:00].
Mind and Brain
In addressing the relationship between mind and brain, Landry notes that neuroscience explores neural correlates, showing a correspondence between subjective experience and brain tissue [01:09:07]. However, even perfected knowledge of these correlations wouldn’t answer the “hard problem” of consciousness: why is this moment this one, or why is there any experience now [01:10:04], [01:10:26]? Correlation doesn’t explain causation or distinguish between past, present, and future [01:10:14], [01:10:34].
Landry agrees that consciousness is a process, but emphasizes the need for a different toolset to address the “hard problem” [01:21:21]. He views “process” as the single most primal concept, with “interaction” as its atomic constituent [01:18:01], [01:43:00]. Process can be conceived in terms of patterns in space, force in time, and probability in possibility [01:19:10].
For Landry, consciousness is intrinsically bound to the concepts of time and “hard random” (potentiality) [01:21:01], [01:21:06]. The fact of a subjective experience is directly connected to temporality, process, and the possibility of other things having happened [01:21:27], [01:21:33]. The “hard problem” remains because physicalist theories don’t provide tools for the symmetry breaking that localizes consciousness to a specific place, moment, and possibility [01:22:14], [01:22:20], [01:22:55]. While the scientific method explains moving from a first-person perspective to a third-person understanding, the reverse — how to get a first-person perspective from a third-person orientation — requires a different kind of conceptual toolset [01:22:55], [01:23:09].