The ontological plane of the modern picture of the world
The modern structure of knowledge, whose principles were laid down at the beginning of the Modernity, is focused on a consistent rejection of the hierarchy. This is most clearly seen in nominalism, which overturns the ontological taxonomy that goes back to Aristotle (individual, species, genus – individuum, specie, genus ), in favor of a plane equalization among themselves of all things taken under the modus hicceitas, “thisness” (Duns Scott). From here it is already a stone’s throw to the logical positivism of Bertrand Russell and early Wittgenstein. The nominalist denial of the ontology of the species, eidos (not to mention the Platonic ideas that were discarded even earlier) carries a very important epistemological message:
From now on, scientific knowledge will be built on a flat, rather than three-dimensional, picture of existence. From three-dimensional logos, we are moving to two-dimensional.
The taxonomy of species and genus, whose existence was recognized by realists, represented the third dimension, making the logos three-dimensional, three-dimensional. And here the relationship between species and genus is not so important for a moment. The most important thing is the recognition or rejection of the species. If we recognize its existence, as realists do, then we can talk about ontological distinctions between species and genus. But if we do not recognize it, then there is neither species nor genus, but only a multitude of individual objects.
Instead of ontological taxonomy, we are now dealing with epistemological classification.
Things no longer have an inner – third – dimension. And classification is nothing more than an external convention, arbitrarily (see the argument of existence of multiple languages in Roscelin of Compiègne and Ockham) introduced by the observing reason – the ancestor of Descartes’ res cogens.
The ontological topic of the modern scientific picture of the world is essentially two-dimensional. All things are individual (atomic) and lie side by side on one – ontological – surface.
This plane paradigm is at the core of both the natural and social sciences.
Society is also thought to be composed of individuals taken entirely independently of any eidetic or generic basis. This flat society corresponds to Hobbes’s “natural state” – a chaotic collision of greedy egoistic individuals among themselves without any plan, goal or general orientation. The material Universe of atoms is described exactly in the same way.
The abolition of the third – vertical – dimension, the rejection of the taxonomic vertical and the ontology of eidos give rise to many antinomies for the same reason. The transition from volume to plane and oblivion that we are dealing only with projection, and not with the true mental geometry, explains almost all contradictions and dead ends in modern natural sciences, and in the socio-political and economic sphere and leads to the accumulation of catastrophes, inevitably heading to the final collapse.
Three-dimensional logo (3D Logos)
The conservative-revolutionary approach to the crisis of European sciences – both natural and social – consists in a gesture that is exactly the opposite of the postmodernists, who correctly noticed the fundamental collapse of Modernity, but proposed to treat smallpox with the bubonic plague. What needs to be done, on the contrary, consists in tracing the origins of the common European delusion of the Modernity to the roots -- to the nominalism and Franciscan – protomaterialist (hence the unhealthy and excessive love of Francis of Assisi himself for “poverty” and “privation”) – picture of the world and a return to three-dimensional ontology …
A critical break between scientific orthodoxy and scientific heterodoxia occurred with the rejection of Aristotle and realism in general.…
After that, Western European science – as well as culture, politics, economics, etc. – found themselves located in the space of “pseudology”, that is, outside the territory of truth, outside of “alethology.” Of course, no knowledge can coincide with the truth, which is always located on a level deeper than any available spheres of thought – like the One of Plotinus and the Neoplatonists. But alethology is the knowledge that unfolds itself under the direct influence of truth, being attracted to it.
At the same time, pseudology begins when this attraction to truth is critically weakened, and the centrifugal tendency becomes predominant; and, accordingly, the force is constantly growing, attracting thought to the opposite pole – to the concentrated point of an absolute lie. In the direction of this point, modern humanity is moving through the Modernity.
Within pseudology itself, no corrections and addjustments will help, no matter how contemporary scientific models – the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, general field theory, chaos theories, fractals, or superstrings – tried to correct the obvious contradictions of classical mechanics, which become transparent to any serious scientist.
As long as thought is placed in a two-dimensional logos, it will, by definition, be doomed to circulate in a pseudo-logical labyrinth.
At this point, one must take existential decision and make a fundamental gesture to erase the whole of Modernity. Europe of the Modernity built its civilization on lies – and getiing deeper and deeper into the depths of lies. In this direction, there is not and cannot ben either salvation nor corrections. Therefore, conservative-revolutionary thought in the field of science proposes to go back to the point of historical bifurcation and go in a different direction. Not along the line of nominalism, but along the line of realism and/or idealism (since, in comparison with nominalism, Aristotle’s realism and Plato’s idealism are both in radical opposition – as three-dimensional ontologies in relation to two-dimensional).
This means that the whole structure of knowledge has to be rebuilt on a vertical taxonomy. Specie, eidos, form do not represent a grading grid arbitrarily introduced from the outside but possess their own being. Knowledge of a particular thing is placed not in it and not outside of it, but between its individuality and its nature – and it is in this direction (following te trajectory of the sight -- inward, upward, towards the ontological center) that the vector of knowledge should be orientated. Only then will science become scientific.
All ontologies built on nominalist premises, that is, on atomism, should be recognized as a lie and aberration.
We have to return from the plane to the intellectual volume, to the mental three-dimensionality. This is how the dignity of knowledge will be restored.
For clarity, the three-dimensional logos can be called metaphorically orbital thinking. Thus, when observing the movements of celestial bodies and planets, one may get the impression that the luminaries and planets collide with each other whenever their position – when looking from the earth at the ecliptic – coincides (entities moving faster overtake slower ones). But taking into account the difference in the radii of rotation – the planets or spheres themselves (as Aristotle believed) – the collision hypothesis disappears by itself.
When the volume is projected onto a plane, when the vertical dimension is lost, this is impossible to notice. To understand the nature of the phenomenon, it is necessary to unpack the three-dimensionality implicitly contained in it. Only in the case of such unpacking will we get a more or less clear picture of the ontology of the things.
All modern science, from philosophy to natural disciplines, is precisely a projection, a flat diagram. Kant’s antinomies, physical and mathematical paradoxes of non-integrable equations and divergent series, contradictions of subject-object correlations, and other similar unsoluble problems are nothing more than imaginary dead ends of a flat ontology. In the projection, the planets should collide, but since this does not happen, this is where the aporias are born. Their nature is that at some point the very act of projection, the gesture of transition from three-dimensionality to two-dimensionality, is overlooked. And no one feels anymore the need to unpack the plane into volume, to restore the implicitly present dimension, the existence of which everyone simply forgot.
To correct the modern epistemological paradigm, it is necessary to turn to orbital thinking. Only this will make it possible to correctly solve the entire growing cluster of accumulating problems. The restoration of orbital trajectories, symmetries in the context of three-dimensional logos will at once resolve all contradictions.
Superstring Theory: An Important Syndrome
We see something similar in superstring theory. Its creators took it as an axiom that all physical and mathematical problems – all unsolvable equations – can be solved if we add six more conventional dimensions to the four-dimensional space (including the time axis). In this case, the contradictions of the four-dimensional world in the ten-dimensional one will cease to be such. This is quite a witty and, on the whole, a well-directed way to break the deadlock. But it, in essence, is erroneous, since it tries to unpack the ontological plane with quantitative – and equally flat! – methods. Superstrings theory is just a parody -- simulacrum -- of orbitality, an attempt to avoid collision with the unpleasant discovery of the complete falsity of the ways of modern science, a desperate rush in the direction of its improvement. Such ten-dimensionality, however, while retaining an epistemological connection with nominalist premises, remains ontologically two-dimensional. True orbitality is something else. And without a radical appeal to philosophical realism (Aristotle), that is, without the recognition of the ontology of the species, unpacking of the plane cannot occur – despite all the technical tricks.
But the very fact that superstring theory is turning to additional dimensions is quite symptomatic: it contains that obvious anxiety of the scientific mind, which seeks to break through the suffocating traps of pseudology. The motivation here is quite correct, although the results are not. Superstring theory should be viewed as an epistemological syndrome.
This orbital approach should be applied to all areas of knowledge – from theology to society, from the study of man to comprehension of the structures of matter.
With regard to theology, the case of Roscelin, the herald of nominalism, is extremely indicative, who, in part repeating the wa of reasoning of the confused Platonist John Philoponus, came to the affirmation of “tritheism” in the interpretation of the Holy Trinity. Since nominalists don't recognize the very existence of the “species”, Roscelin interpreted the Trinity as a set of “three gods”, each of which was thought of by him as an “individual”, as “this” god. Divinity as a specie, as a generalizing ontological taxon, he denied. And although this line has not received development, it clearly shows the very structure of a plane theology: this type of thought is generally incompatible with Christianity.
This became obvious as European science became more and more openly materialistic and atheistic.
Flat politics: capitalism, democracy
The absence of three-dimensional logos in political philosophy led to bourgeois egalitarianism, capitalism, and liberal democracy. Here again, the specie wrer denied, and the individual citizen (that is, the bourgeois, the city dweller) was taken as the only ontological basis of the political structure – as in Hobbes’s pessimistic political ontology (all people are evil, therefore, the monster Leviathan must be placed over them, who will force them to tame their evil and their propensity for violence), and in Locke’s optimistic political ontology (all people are neutral, tabula rasa, whatever society writes on them they will become exactly that).
In anthropology, the same path to the plane model went through the rejection of the relationship of the personal soul with the world soul, or through the loss of the inner spiritual dimension, deeper than the soul itself. This is clearly seen in the polemics of the Dominicans – especially the mystics of the Cologne School (from Dietrich von Freiberg to Meister Eckhart, Suso, and Tauler) – with the Franciscans. From the recognition by Franciscans of the radical thisness of the individual soul with no realtions to the acrive intelligence (defended by Cologne School) to the complete rejection of the recognition of the existence of the soul as such in modern psychology and physiology was a stone’s throw. The soul, according to Aristotle, is a kind, a form of a body, a person. Man is not an individual concept, but a specie. Consequently, by the soul, the individual as person is ontologically connected with the eidetic existence of humanity. Individualistic anthropology, modern psychology and political liberalism are based on the same common principle of two-dimensionality in the interpreting the very nature of man.
And again, as in the case of theology, at first eidetic Divinity, the Divinity as sommon quality is lost, and afterwards personal God is abolished. So – in the name of the individual and his strictly individual soul – the weight of the species is discarded, and then the individual himself disintegrates into parts.
We see exactly the same thing in the natural sciences. The idea that matter consists of atoms, or rather of particles, which are not parts of a whole, but can arbitrarily create different bodies (a kind of molecular democracy), underlies all scientific disciplines of modern times – physics and chemistry, biology and astronomy.
This side-by-side arrangement of individual bodies deprives matter of the inner dimension, of belonging to the whole, of any quality. But matter devoid of qualities cannot be studied, since there is simply nothing to study in it. In its pure state, it will coincide with a pure lie.
According to Aristotle, the materiality of bodies is tantamount to the privation inherent in them. Things are material to the extent that they are deprived, and not endowed with being. The bearer of being is form, eidos. In such three-dimensional physics, atoms cannot exist. It operates with holistic figures, with gestalts, consisting not of particles, but of parts, and the existence of the parts is ensured by the existence of the whole. An individual exists insofar as it is an individual of a certain species. Therefore, a real physicist studies not matter or materiality, but bodily figures, organic ensembles that refer to a whole of a higher order – and so on up to the majestic idea of the cosmos, the Heaven, crowning the structures of cognition.
The volumetric matter of Aristotle is ether, of which the highest of bodies – the body of Heaven – consists.
Restoration of taxonomy and hierarchy in all zones of epistemology
The task of conservative-revolutionary science is to restore the hierarchy. This applies to all types of knowledge – from the natural sciences to the socio-political structure, humanitarian knowledge, and the organization of society. The hierarchy must be restored in all areas.
From abolished or crumbling (weak) theology, it is necessary to return to medieval clarity – to a strong theology that not only insists on its own, contrary to the arguments of the nominalists but exterminates with fire and sword any hint of liberal creed and reject any compromise with the “spirit of the times.”
There is a time with the spirit of which the Church under no circumstances should make any compromises.
This is true in the case of the devil, but no less true in the case of European Modernity. It is a theology that must become the queen of sciences. Either that or nothing. Everything else is the path to hell.
It is necessary to return the hierarchy to political thinking. A normative society should be built vertically, where the measure is relation to the species, to the generalizing taxon.
In this case, the peak of the hierarchy is the sacred monarchy, where the top of the hierarchy is occupied by a paradoxical being, in which singularity is fused with unity, and uniqueness is with unification. The sacred ruler is a human specie, a specie that has become an individual. Hence such concepts as “tsar-father”, “father of the people”, etc. The sacred ruler is not just the first among the equals, but he possesses the inner nature transcendent to all the rest.
It is also necessary to restore the caste system, since between the λ-individual and the king it is quite possible to outline the intermediate proportions based on the combination of the private and the general principles in an individual. This is the concept of ontocracy: a social hierarchy based on the quality of the being of the soul, depdending from its inner solar, lunar or terrestrial nature. Most traditional societies were like that. It needs to be revived. Only such an orbital political philosophy will become a solution to the accumulated paradoxes and problems of liberal democracy, which is degenerating into the worst tyranny before our eyes.
Anthropology should be built on the principle of the sovereign soul, and the source of this sovereignty should be traced to its innermost dimension – to the point of the spirit. Here, the most important thing is to restore the full completeness of Aristotle’s ideas on active intelligence, νοῦς ποιητικός. This is also the core of the Radical Subject theory.
Finally, the conservative revolution in science requires a new physics and a new cosmology. Atomism must be totally discarded, and with it all classifications, theories, concepts and terms based on this approach. A total cleansing of physics is needed, a return to the concept of five elements (letters of the cosmos), a phenomenological rethinking of the cosmos as an existential ( in–der–Welt–Sein), holistic ontology. If we do not make the transition to orbital thinking, to a three-dimensional logos in the field of natural sciences, we will face a catastrophe.
It is impossible to change society in its cultural, humanitarian component – and keep intact pseudological ideas about the nature of matter and bodies. Cosmos as a total body is the support and basis of the spirit. A pure spirit in a dirty body eaten by atomistic leprosy cannot exist (will not want to). A hierarchy must be established here too – for example, a hierarchy of 5 elements – from gravitating earth and water to levitating air and fire; and further to the unchanging celestial ether, on the other side of the sphere of the Moon.
Surely, such a program of a conservative revolution in science will seem to everyone to be too radical, impracticable and unreasonable. This opinion can be completely disregarded. The degeneration of the Modern has gone too far to hope for any palliative measures, for adjustments and partial corrections within the framework of the dominant paradigm. Postmodernity has ventured to question this paradigm. And it looks quite convincing, evidence-based and substantiated.
Another thing is that Postmodernity offers a kind of euthanasia instead of cure. And speculative realists go even further, proposing to finally eliminate the weakened, suffering, disintegrating subject, taking a position against him – from the very core of lie. Hence their frank attraction to the fundamental ontological Satanism, appeals to the figures of Lovecraft’s black Si-Fi – the gods-idiots, Old Ones , living outside of external border of matter. It is a daring move to invite everybody to cultivate artificial delirium or converse in university departments with their own body members (like speculative realists - for example Timothy Morton during his Moscow lecture).
Comparing with a deep disintegration of scientific rationality, where the refinement of technology is accompanied by an increasingly irreversible plunge into blatant madness, the proposal to completely erase modern science in all its dimensions ceases to look too extravagant. One might think that the object-oriented theories of the Dark Enlightenment by Nick Land, calling for the total destruction of humanity and life on earth, or Lacanian topologies, completely decomposing the remnants of rationality, do not go beyond the framework of academic conventions …
Therefore, the conservative revolution in epistemology is free of any obligations. They are very daring to destroy we should be daring to restore and to save.
Modern science and the society based on it are doomed and are on the verge of extinction. In such a situation, the project of returning to Aristotle, to vertical taxonomy and orbital thinking ceases to look like something completely incredible. What is falling at the end of a day will fall – push it or not. This is almost a fait accompli.
But, recognizing the collapse of Modern two-dimensional science, one can in despair crumple up an insane drawing and throw it into the fire, or you can tear off the enchanted gaze from it and discover the fullness of the saturated volumetric world, which European Modernity tried to make us forget.
Modern science is dead. And all the way forward is nothing but movement along the cemetery tract.
But once upon a time, there was life on earth – the life of the mind, spirit, thought, knowledge. And this is not a myth. This is Aristotle. This is the Middle Ages. This is abundance of deep Christian thought. The only true and scientific one.
Orbital thinking, science-based on three-dimensional logos is both possible and necessary.
And this is the only way out of this critical situation. The sooner this is understood, the more time we will have to get out of the deadly turn of civilization. We still can approaching the very edge of the abyss make a saving turn.