Ontological Categories

The idea of a category occurred to me recently, but its construction is a very simple one that can take us back to the beginning of my philosophy requiring only the foundations of the metaphysics of awareness and basic work on ontology. However, in the context of my philosophy in its present state the idea of a category will be illuminated to a higher level of understanding where the reader is able to clearly see its position within the metaphysical cosmos of the Soul that we perceive. I use the term 'Ontological Categories' in the title because as we shall see the construct of a category provides an easy pathway into Ontology, and shall also help us elucidate upon the concept of Ideals later.

My work on Categories is what mathematicians call naive in that it is not a formal or rigorous theory in itself but provides a platform for such a system to be constructed upon, the prominent example being Naive Set Theory in Mathematics. My philosophy has explained this necessity for a 'naive' understanding before a formal one as the pure intuition occupying a higher level of metaphysical existence than the formal logicalal theory. Of course we need not worry about such matters within my philosophy for it encompasses and is founded upon Ontology, Ontology is the blood coursing through the veins of dialect and reason and permeating the fabric of the word as a reflection of higher being.

The notion of a category begins with a simple observation, in philosophizing about objects of our perception we add an additional 'structure' to the object. As a simple example we may say that an object is blue. In my work on Ontological Logic I explained how properties can be logically explained by understanding the object to be form of multiple singularities, it is a form of its abstract structure and a from of the singularity of Blueness. However as I explained in the introduction, the notion of a Category does not require an understanding of Ontological Logic or any significant further theory beyond the Singularity-Form archetypes, as such we can naively construct a category of blueness. Now, while a category may be derived from experience it is not a fixed singularity, but a fluid structure which can be applied to any existent entity. Any object of perception may be called blue, whether it actually is remains a different issue and is not the primary concern here, in the capacity to call anything blue we construct an underlying field of blueness of which everything can partake in; everything could be blue, and in possibility lies actuality for all is awareness. This discussion seems nonsensical if we hold onto an understanding of blue as a colour, a property of physical objects, indeed we have assumed blueness to be some abstract framework, in applying blueness to a level of existence we place the category of blueness in a higher ontological state than the applied substance, and applying blueness to everything we place the category as the higher form of Ontological Being, essentially the Soul. This is a complete distortion of what we really mean by blueness, and if we are truthful to conventional understanding the category can only be applied to objects of a lower level of existence. The distinction with a singularity of Blueness is that the category does not contain all things that actually are blue like the Singularity, but contains all things which possibly could be blue.

Now the notion of the Ontological Category comes to direct fruition. What objects could be blue? All physical objects. Thus the category of blueness is the same as the singularity of all material forms. The category is a construction that provides us with the highest Ontological structure of all that it can be applied to, albeit with a different name. So why is the concept necessary at all? Since the onset of my philosophy we have taken words such as 'being' or 'existence' for granted, but now we have a direct pathway for their construction, we simply consider the category that can be applied to everything.

We can now place this discussion within a more rigorous metaphysical framework. If all is awareness, the objects of our perception can be reduced to this foundational stratum and the ability to apply a category to the objects must then be regarded as awareness of awareness. We have once again found ourselves at the footstool of the throne of Ontology, this archetypal argument resounds again and again within the universe of Knowledge. Awareness of awareness is no different from awareness, and so the category is no different from the object of perception. The category produces an underlying field upon which its contents are placed, now metaphysics absorbs the contents into the very essence of the field proving that the two are no different. Existence and Being are not mere 'properties' or 'structures' applied to all substances, but all substance exist and be. If they are to be treated as structures then the Singularity archetype is the only acceptable way, for it contains the essence of Ontology; more than placing the stars as adornments within the sky, the stars are exalted as the very life of the universe and not its jewelry.