A Note on Emerging Philosophy of Neo-Scalism.

giphyFollowing Kant and Schopenhauer concepts of noumenon of “will” one could state that objective reality, the singular unitary thing in itself, all permeating entity beyond our perception capabilities, could be considered as reality that gains its representation as a structured, plural world, only in a form of separate but complementary ideas in our mind. Hence, so-called phenomena i.e. objects+relations, determined by our aesthetics do not objectively exist beyond our awareness of them since they are simply plural concepts incepted into our minds.

And hence fundamental laws of nature we seem to discover “experimentally” may likely be just mathematical/tautological creation of our mind, as D. Hume insisted, the result of already preconceived ideas about structure and processes of what we call universe but rather what we should call the universe of our over-interpreted sensibilities. Our intellectual journey beyond the border of our common sensibilities all too often result in instability, variability or failure of validity of what we understand as fundamental laws of nature, which actually are just consequences of mathematical tautologies i.e. varying expressions of the same singular idea.

The emerging philosophy of “Neo-Scalism”, implies that discoverable “laws of nature” if such exist in our abstract singular existence and identity sense and understanding, depend on scale in which knowing subject (a human) “exists” or is aware of its existence. The so-called scale or rather scaloid does not refer to meaning of the word as defined by our aesthetics but rather should be understood in a general sense of an arbitrary attribute of the reality itself.

According to Neo-Scalism we, entities are conceived to “exist” within our own scaloid where and when we can understand only as much about our close environment as to allow us to survive and/or thrive. And hence we do not “exist”, in common sense of the word, in microcosm scaloid as well as in wider cosmological realm such as of the scaloid of universe. In other words, our physical structure that we perceive as (human) being has no meaning in microcosm and has no importance in macrocosm of our idea of universe although we insist otherwise.

Does Neo-Scalism allow for our own objective reality “existing” for us alone as knowing subjects, bound by our aesthetics? In my previous post


I suggested one of such possibility while discussing so-called entropic realities i.e. NME realities that reject determinism replacing it with probabilism and substituting objects and causal phenomena with random stimuli-event matrix.

If true what could it mean? It could mean that reality as it presents itself to us (our concept of it) cannot be understood in any other ways differently from the one that was afforded to our mind a-priori, as an idea or representation but not of our objective reality of our scaloid but of our mind’s capability to understand it. In other words even objective NME probabilistic reality, if exist, would be particular or subjective to us if we were able to directly observe or interact with it in itself, instead of being isolated behind wall of sense perceptions.

Is it even possible to escape from knowing subject into nothingness of objective reality?

Does Neo-Scalism allow for absolute objective reality “existing” despite lack of knowing subjects and their awareness of it?

Yes, but only if we fall on our apriori philosophical concept of unity or monism and on our unreliable transcendental binary logic. The philosophy of Neo-Scalism describes absolute objective reality as manifestation of reality scaloids, specific objective realities, in which corresponding entities are brought into what we would call existence by our mind. Such entities could be limited in their capability of particularly understood interactions solely with other entities of corresponding reality scaloid. At given scaloid, realities are manifesting themselves as quasi-deterministic as required by aesthetics of entities of “awareness” i.e. knowing subjects.

The problem arises when so-called intelligent “knowing entities” trying to extend their limited models of reality they were able to conceptualize, built on their subjective limited experiences enclosed within their native scaloid, towards other scaloids which cannot yield consistent perceptional results by nature of absolute objective reality which manifests itself differently for different scaloids.

Absolute objective reality if exist would be a second level noumenon to us, something analogous to smoke that would be perceived as solid object in a millisecond snapshot, or fluid phenomenon taking up all forms of event stimuli perceived as objects, shapes, patterns, colors, consistent in mind of knowing subjects which themselves are built of the smoke “existing” and imprisoned within its scaloid.

To better illustrate an analog to this speculative argument consider following: If for us, knowing subjects, 1,000,000,000 years would be a second or we were size of galaxy, would we notice human life, would we notice whole solid forms or structures that humans perceive and conceptualize, or just transitory meaningless “dirt in the wind”, and our ideas, objects, phenomena if they would even exists for us would be alien to humans. That is the nature of Neo-Scalism. It is the knowing subject that defines what reality is, since the only knowable reality is a product of our mind what Berkeley discovered over three centuries ago.

This discourse about Neo-Scalism and variability of so-called “fundamental laws of nature” as we are having in relation to apparently failing law of gravity in the scale of universe, or microcosm of elementary particles in philosophical plane, meets the discourse about intelligibility vs. believability of the theories in context of metaphysics of reality. Can we reconcile “discoverable laws” spanning different transcendental “space-time” scales in unified framework, with narratives we can truly understand or is it impossible since we are dealing with just an idea of objective reality not a thing it itself.

The historical take on intelligibility vs. believability of theories can be found at:


An interesting take on theory vs. reality in social context can be found at:



5 thoughts on “A Note on Emerging Philosophy of Neo-Scalism.

    1. Sostratus Post author

      The problem with your question is that a concept of “existing” in itself is the concept of our mind alone, whether it is so-called primal existence, driven by the sensed stimuli events or a noumenon, abstract singular type of existence brought to “life” by inception.

      However, no matter how we define or understand, it will always be a human creation, the creation of so-called “knowing subject” i.e. our mind and most likely unrelated to what “true nature” of the objective reality really is. One may say that our concept of existence is a human analog to what we can’t fathom about true objective reality.

      The good example of the concept of “existence” as created in our mind is a pile of red bricks. The pile of red bricks exists, there is an object called the “pile of red bricks” in our mind but if we build the castle using those red bricks, the pile of red bricks, as an object is no more. Now, the castle exists, even if it is just the same pile of red bricks with one important difference i.e. we found it useful to distinguish the castle from just a pile of red bricks. Does the castle exist? Does the pile of red bricks exist? In objective reality, independent of us, “knowing subjects”, it is just a pile of red bricks and it’s always been. That’s all. It is our mind that creates the “existing” elements of reality.

      If the “existence” is a pure creation of our mind, “non-existence” is just a logical concept of our mind applying unity and complementarity principles as described by E. Kant who refers to them as categories of thought.

      Here is the excerpt from another post from my blog “A Note on Metaphysics of Reality” that attempts to deal with the question.

      Third, our a-priori aesthetics preclude conceptualization of any “material” objects or phenomena devoid of primal sense of existence. Otherwise, it would imply lack of any awareness of an event being perceived or identity being established since it would entail lack of labeling or any kind of characterization of an object or phenomenon. In contrast, self originated entities of our mind such as noumena are brought into existence by inception with no corresponding sense perceptions and hence do not acquire primal sense of existence but other kind of existence, an abstract singular existence and identity, a clone, a product of our own conscientiousness and our own identity. In other words noumenon exists only in singular abstract sense because it is created by existing entity i.e. our conscientious mind. Such assertion is consistent with R. Descartes motto, “I think therefore I am” as quintessence of the existence. In similar manner our own mind does not exist in primal sense but only in abstract noumenon-like sense of duality of self-consciousness and self-awareness, a creator and createe in unity of one as described in Hegel’s Master and Servant in his Phenomenology of Mind;


  1. ontologicalrealist

    All concepts are of course products of mind including the concept of existence. You are writing posts using the words “existing” and “non existing”. What do you mean when you use these word? What is the difference you make while using these words?


    1. Sostratus Post author

      All concepts are of course products of mind including the concept of existence. You are writing posts using the words “existing” and “non existing”. What do you mean when you use these word? What is the difference you make while using these words?

      The best answer I could come up with is in my previous comment.

      ..our concept of existence is a human analog to what we can’t fathom about true objective reality.

      The “word” itself is just a word, an element of our language generative mechanism, a label that refers to certain concept or idea of our mind, nothing more. As Kant put it existence/non-existence is a category of thought, it is the way we think, an apriori knowledge we are endowed with at birth, a derivative of a concepts of Plato’s oneness as unity of parts or logical complementarity. We metaphorically choose what exists and what does not, with subjective assignment of meaning to what exists and denying the same meaning to what does not exists.

      What would be even more interesting is to answer a question: why we cannot prove that either my post is a figment of your imagination or your comment is a figment of mine?



Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s