The Practical Application of Ontological Logic

I explained in my previous article that the purpose of logic is in equating concepts with their singularities. It is overdue for me to explain that any substance in itself can be conceived as singularity, we may have concepts referring to a physical objects and thus they must too be considered singularities. Any form conceivable is a singularity in itself; in the case of a physical object the forms of the singularity would be every particular instance in which it may appear. If one studies my axioms they will understand that this now entails that all substances, what could otherwise be called any element of existence the mind is aware of, obeys a singularity structure; this is an elaboration of the idea of existence being shaped by the singularity-form archetypes, though it should not be a surprising consequence when one considers ontology.

The process of naming singularities occurs a posteriori. Different individuals may call the same thing by different names, if we may temporarily ignore the problematic nature of asserting that different individuals may refer to the 'same thing'. The only a priori knowledge is of the Ontological Circles whose existence shapes our very perception; they are the lenses of awareness which give rise to experience, and as such they must exist in the human mind before experience occurs. This is summarised as below:

As we can see what we are attempting to study is the faculties of reason and logic, of course through their very being, which is what entails Ontological Logic. As hinted to before, this is the highest domain that the faculties should concern themselves with, for the Soul substance of the human Will is completely beyond the measure of words and thoughts as eluded to many a time. 

As a mathematician I am interested in complete abstraction and totality, which gives rise to a sense of aesthetic beauty. A reader of this philosophy should ask the question as to why I have chosen four ontological circles, or rather why four have arisen over the course of the extended discourse. There are four because I deemed that to provide a clear enough elucidation into the structure of the faculties of reason and logic, of course the trend of my philosophy is to lead us unto oneness. There is only one ontological circle, as there is only one mind and one self. Awareness, singularity, conception, these are branches of the same tree viewed from different angles. The tree of being. In an alternative system of philosophy there may be five, six, or 10,000 ontological circles. But my philosophy transcends its being as a system, it studies how philosophical thought arises in the human mind. The heart of the matter is the issue of an ontological circle itself, not the particular ones. 

In this article I am providing a discourse on the relation of reason to our experience of the world. Clearly, not all is absolute oneness. From the disintegration of oneness into form, and that form again in a hierarchy of being, our perception of the known world is as such constructed. We can meaningfully speak of every branch of this tree aside from its crown. It is clear of how the forms of one singularity may be individually named by concepts, but this does not account for the mingling and compounding of singularities to produce the objects of our perception.

To make this more clear let us proceed by way of an example. It can be said that the sky is blue. When we speak of the singularity of the sky we do not refer to its physical properties, but to the teleology of the substance, what the mind perceives a sky as constituting defined by the purpose ascertained by conscious awareness. There is also the singularity of blueness. To prescribe the property of blueness to the sky is to say that the singularity of the sky is a form of the singularity of blueness. Of course we could equivalently say that the singularity of blueness is a form of the singularity of the sky, for in this case the category of blueness is perceived as being fundamental to what makes the sky, the sky, in this particular instance. During the night we may say the sky is black and full of stars, for a more universal definition of the sky we would need to abandon attachment to the essence that changes and analyse its fundamental constituent being. I suppose that would entail the singularity to be the scientific definition of the sky as an atmosphere of a planet. 

In general a singularity A can be said to take on the property of a singularity B if one partakes in being the form of the other and vice versa. 

Substances can also be perceived to be the compound of two different singularities. A bird could be considered a singularity in itself, but this singularity could be said to be composed of the constituents of the bird such as its wings, feathers, and so on. Each of these singularities is amalgamated to produce the singularity of the bird. This is a generalisation of the idea of properties, to explain how a perceived singularity arises in the conscious mind.

This presents a rather complicated universe of the experienced world consisting of singularities and forms each participating in the others existence. Hopefully I have presented a sufficient detail of the precise mechanism by which this experiential construction takes place in the domain of human perception. The names, concepts and ideas of this world are transient and impermanent; forms will always be forms but what form they are and in what singularity is the shifting chaos of this world. Only absolute Oneness stands eternal and timeless, it is only absolute Oneness that is real. It is such that the practical applications of Ontological Logic are not of the greatest concern to me, I simply wish to study their theoretical detail. Ontological Logic itself is the birth of reason and logic, it is the faculty in itself and of itself.