Tag: consciousness

The Master’s Concepts: Decolonising the House Without Keeping the Furniture

Posted in philosophy, podcastTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment
9–14 minutes

A colleague recently shared an essay with me, The Return of Metaphysics: Reclaiming Sovereignty Through Ontological Grounding in Postcolonial and Western Thought. I read it with interest, not least because its target is one I share: the colonial imposition of Western categories as if they were universal reason, universal law, universal political form, and universal humanity. On that point, there is no meaningful disagreement. Colonialism isn’t merely theft of land, labour, and resources. It’s also the imposition of a grammar by which reality itself was made legible to power.

The essay is at its strongest when it treats colonialism as metaphysical violence rather than merely administrative domination. It argues that Europe universalised its own categories and rendered other worlds invisible, inferior, or unreal. Colonialism, on this account, was not only conquest. It was the installation of one ontology as the authorised operating system of the human. That’s a powerful diagnosis, and it deserves to be taken seriously. The essay explicitly describes colonialism as a process that ‘re-made being’ and suppressed other conceptions of time, morality, and community.

Where I start to hesitate isn’t in the critique of colonialism, but in the proposed recovery. The essay seeks to reclaim metaphysics, sovereignty, agency, moral authorship, and ontological grounding as instruments of postcolonial renewal. It wants to oppose colonial metaphysics by recovering metaphysics; to oppose hollow sovereignty by reconstructing sovereignty; to oppose imposed subjectivity by restoring moral authorship.

This may be coherent within the essay’s own frame. But from mine, it raises a suspicion:

What if some of the concepts being recovered are themselves part of the colonial inheritance?

  • “a return to metaphysics”
  • “moral authorship”
  • “ontological reconstruction”
  • “popular agency”

These terms don’t arrive clean. They carry histories and come with fittings: sovereignty, possession, self-rule, jurisdiction, authorship, legitimacy, command. One may repaint them in decolonial colours, but the shape remains. Inheritance is the danger.

Audio: NotebookLM summary podcast of this topic.

Sovereignty as a Recovered Trap

The essay’s central concept is sovereignty. More precisely, post-sovereignty. Yet the very act of preserving sovereignty as the problematic term matters. Sovereignty isn’t just a neutral container for self-determination. It’s one of the central concepts through which Western political modernity imagines authority: bounded, possessed, territorialised, juridical, and authorial.

To speak of sovereignty is already to speak in the grammar of command: Rules. Owners. Authorities. Something marks the line between inside and outside.

This doesn’t mean colonised peoples were wrong to demand sovereignty. The politically dispossessed may understandably seek the protections of the language used to exclude them. If one has been denied the status of a subject, a nation, or a people, then reclaiming those terms may be historically necessary. There’s no cheap purity available from the comfort of abstraction. Humans made the mess, naturally, and then handed each other dictionaries to clean the mess.

But political necessity doesn’t settle conceptual adequacy. A term may be strategically useful and ontologically suspect at the same time. So, the question isn’t whether sovereignty has been useful in anti-colonial struggle. It’s whether it should remain the destination, rather than a transitional vocabulary one eventually leaves behind.

The essay recognises that many postcolonial states retain the ‘juridical structure’ of autonomy whilst remaining governed by inherited categories of colonial law, property, development, and bureaucratic legitimacy. That’s exactly the point where the critique might turn more sharply on sovereignty itself. If postcolonial statehood often reproduces colonial form, perhaps the issue isn’t merely that sovereignty is hollow, but maybe it’s just one of the forms through which hollowness reproduces itself.

NotebookLM Infographic on this topic.

Agency: The Smuggled Protagonist

The same problem emerges around agency. The essay speaks of popular agency, moral authorship, co-authorship, and subjectification. Again, the impulse is understandable. Colonial domination denies people the right to act, name, interpret, and organise their own lifeworlds. A postcolonial theory naturally wants to restore capacity to those rendered passive.

But the agency term isn’t innocent. In modern Western thought, agency often implies a self capable of authorship, intention, responsibility, and moral ownership. It’s the protagonist required by law, markets, liberal politics, and punishment. Someone must be deemed the chooser, the signer, the sinner, the voter, the debtor, the criminal, the rational actor.

In my own work, I reject agency as a metaphysical possession. I’d rather speak of responsiveness: a variable capacity shaped by material, relational, temporal, somatic, and epistemic conditions. People don’t float above conditions and author themselves into freedom. They respond, more or less adequately, within fields of constraint.

The essay’s emphasis on relationality moves in this direction, but its vocabulary often pulls it back toward authorship. It wants shared becoming, but it also wants moral authors. It wants relational ontology, but it also keeps the self as a source of political meaning. This is a revealing tension.

The alternative isn’t fatalism. To reject agency isn’t to deny action. Breathing doesn’t require a metaphysics of breath. It just happens autonomically. The question is whether we must preserve the fiction of the authorial subject to describe them. I think not.

When Negation Need Not Become Synthesis

The essay leans on Fanon (see The Wretched of the Earth) to argue that colonial domination can’t be resolved through dialogue because dialogue presumes equals. This is right, or at least right enough. A conversation between master and slave is not yet a conversation between equals. Liberal dialogue presumes a shared field of recognition; colonial domination corrupts that field before speech begins.

The essay, therefore, turns to dialectic. Where dialogue seeks agreement, dialectic begins from contradiction and struggle. Again, this makes sense. A colonised subject can’t merely ask to be recognised by the system that produced their non-being. Something must be negated.

My hesitation concerns what happens after the negation. The essay sometimes seems to assume that contradiction must move toward ontological reconstruction. But why? If one term of the contradiction is an imposed colonial ontology, it might not deserve preservation within a higher unity because it mightn’t be a meaningful antithesis. It may simply be wrong, violent, and disposable.

This is the dis-integrative question:

Must the colonial term be synthesised, or can it be dispensed with?

Not every opposition is productive. Some oppositions are parasitic. If a worldview is imposed by force, then treating it as a dialectical partner may grant it more dignity than it deserves. The point of decolonial refusal may not be synthesis, but de-imposition.

That distinction matters. Synthesis often preserves too much. It lets the offending structure survive as a contributor to the next stage. It says, in effect: this violence was part of becoming. Perhaps. But perhaps not. Perhaps some concepts belong on the cutting room floor.

Metaphysics: Necessary Grammar or Rebuilt Throne?

The essay argues that postmodern anti-metaphysics has left social theory without stable categories of truth or moral orientation. It wants metaphysics back, not as abstraction, but as the recovery of moral and ontological grounds for political community.

I understand the concern here, too. Communities don’t live by procedure alone. No society is sustained merely by policy, rights language, or bureaucratic form. People inhabit worlds, not spreadsheets. There are ontological grammars beneath every institution: assumptions about personhood, time, land, memory, obligation, kinship, death, and belonging.

But I resist the move from ‘we can’t avoid ontological grammar‘ to ‘we need metaphysical grounding‘. Whilst the former seems unavoidable, the latter seems dangerous.

Metaphysics isn’t simply depth. It’s elevation – the move by which a grammar stops appearing as grammar and starts presenting itself as ground. It becomes the authorised deep structure, the thing beneath dispute, the foundation beneath the foundation. And foundations, as humans have demonstrated with astonishing consistency, are excellent places to hide power.

My preference is to minimise metaphysical devices. They’re unavoidable, but they’re liabilities.

Each one requires a leap. One leap may be necessary. Ten leaps become choreography. Eventually, the argument is no longer walking; it’s performing interpretive dance and calling itself ontology.

The Problem of Rebuilding

This is where my own Dis–integrationist commitments diverge most sharply from the essay. I’m a diagnostician. I deconstruct and name seams with no obligation to replace every collapsed universal.

The essay treats diagnosis as insufficient. It says the critique of sovereignty reveals a metaphysical vacuum, but diagnosis is not enough. Post-sovereignty must move toward ontological reciprocity, relational becoming, and shared labour of mutual recognition. Whilst this move is respectable. It’s also the one I distrust.

The rebuilding instinct is one of philosophy’s oldest addictions. Expose the flaw, draft the remedy, rebuild the edifice, declare the new form less violent than the old. This is how critique becomes renovation.

But the refusal to rebuild isn’t indifference, despair, or nihilism. It’s a refusal to let repair disguise itself as permanence. Care, maintenance, reciprocity, and local repair remain possible without metaphysical reconstruction. In fact, they may be more honest when stripped of the promise of final grounding.

Pedagogical Sovereignty and the Soft Machinery of Formation

The essay’s later sections turn to education. It proposes pedagogical sovereignty as a model of moral and ontological co-creation. The classroom becomes a site where being isn’t transmitted but collaboratively formed. Governance, by analogy, might become less administrative and more pedagogical: citizens not merely ruled, but constituted in relation. As attractive as this might be. it’s also perilous.

Education has always had this double face. It can liberate, but it can also format. It can open worlds, but it can also install authorised grammars. The classroom is not outside power. It’s one of power’s favourite incubators. The fact that it speaks gently doesn’t mean it’s not shaping bodies, subjects, desires, norms, and permissions.

To make pedagogy the model of sovereignty risks softening administration rather than escaping it. It may replace the command of the state with the formation of the subject. That may be better and subtler, but one should be careful when power arrives wearing soft shoes.

This doesn’t refute the essay’s educational turn, but it complicates it. If pedagogy is to be an emancipatory model, it has to preserve opacity, dissent, and non-formation. It needs to allow the learner not merely to become, but to remain partially unread, unfinished, and unintegrated. Otherwise, pedagogical sovereignty may become another normalising machine with better intentions and comfy chairs.

The Cutting Room Floor

My objection isn’t that the essay is wrong to oppose colonialism. Au contraire; its critique of colonial metaphysics is often compelling, and it’s preaching to the choir at the start. The issue is that its recovery project may carry forward more of the colonial-conceptual apparatus than it recognises.

The following terms deserve suspicion:

  • Sovereignty, because it preserves the grammar of possession, jurisdiction, bounded authority, and command.
  • Agency, because it preserves the authorial subject required by liberal law, market morality, and responsibility allocation.
  • Moral authorship, because it risks reintroducing the self as origin, even when collectivised.
  • Metaphysical grounding, because it may turn situated lifeworlds into foundations.
  • Reconstruction, because it assumes fracture demands repair, rather than sometimes demanding refusal.
  • Dialectical synthesis, because it may preserve the imposed term as a contributor to the future, rather than discarding it as an error condition.

None of these concepts must be rejected out of hand. That would be too easy. But they shouldn’t pass uninspected simply because they have been recruited into decolonial service. Fine. Use the master’s tools to dismantle the house, but don;t become too fond of them.

Toward De-Imposition

So, what then?

  • Dis–integration, not reconstruction
  • De-imposition, not anti-colonial sovereignty
  • Responsiveness, not agency
  • Relational maintenance, not moral authorship
  • Ontological grammar held visibly as grammar, not metaphysical grounding

This doesn’t mean communities should abandon their lifeworlds, traditions, or inherited moral vocabularies. It means those vocabularies shouldn’t need to become metaphysical foundations to matter. A world may be lived, tended, and defended without being inflated into ground.

The colonised don’t need permission from Western metaphysics to exist. Or me, for that matter. Nor do they need to rebuild themselves in metaphysical form to count as real. The refusal of imposed reality may be enough. After that, there may be practices, relations, institutions, memories, ceremonies, languages, solidarities, and forms of care. There may be politics and struggle. And, sure, repair and maintenance. But there needn’t be a new foundation.

Enfin

The essay I am responding to is valuable because it presses a real question:

If colonialism was ontological violence, can anti-colonial thought afford to remain merely procedural, linguistic, or diagnostic?

My answer is: diagnosis is not ‘merely’ anything. To diagnose is to identify the machinery by which certain concepts keep reproducing their own authority. If sovereignty, agency, authorship, and metaphysical grounding belong to that machinery, then they should not be automatically restored just because they have been wounded.

Some concepts can be reclaimed. Others should be retired. Some may be used provisionally, under protest, as transitional scaffolding. Again, others may belong on the cutting room floor.

The challenge isn’t only to oppose colonialism and its effects. It’s to notice when colonial grammar survives inside the opposition. That’s the harder work – less heroic, sonorous, and much less likely to produce a grand theory, but it may be more honest.

When Syntax Is Asked to Bear Too Much v1.2

Posted in philosophy, podcastTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment
1–2 minutes

I published the first version of this essay in February, arguing that the Frege–Geach problem, that three-score-year-old albatross around expressivism’s neck rests on a category error. Analytic philosophers were polite about it in the way that analytic philosophers are polite about things they intend to ignore. I don’t often revise my manuscripts, opting instead to publish a new and improved version, but the meat of this one remained strong and not worth revisiting as much as fortifying.

The trouble was that I’d dissolved the problem without resolving it. Good enough for me. Others were less convinced. Telling people they’ve been asking the wrong question is satisfying but insufficient without a better one. Version 1.1 tidied the prose. Version 1.2 does the actual work.

The new section (§4, if you’ve already read previous versions) introduces recruitable expressions – a broader class of expressions (moral predicates, thick evaluative terms, epistemic and institutional vocabulary) whose full functional load is attenuated under embedding whilst a thinner inferential profile remains available for reasoning. The standard of practical inferential adequacy replaces the demand for semantic identity: what ordinary reasoning requires is not invariance but inferential sufficiency. And the pattern isn’t peculiar to moral language – a noted goal –, which means Frege–Geach stops looking like a special embarrassment for expressivism and starts looking like one symptom of a general feature of how natural language handles multi-functional expressions under logical stress.

The essay is dissolved as a demand for unrestricted semantic invariance. It is resolved insofar as the behaviour it identifies is explained, predicted, and shown to be general.

The revised paper is available here, near the rest of my manuscripts: DOI

Lastly, this essay is built on the foundations of A Language Insufficiency Hypothesis and The Architecture of Encounter, the latter of which wasn’t yet available for the initial publication.

As ever, I welcome the polite ignoring.

Duration and the Intervalic Imposition

Posted in philosophy, podcastTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 4 Comments
6–10 minutes

I’ve got a new annotated edition of Heidegger‘s Being and Time, and it’s got me thinking about time – and thinking out loud. Obviously, Husserl is invoked by Heidegger, and the notion of duration (via durée) is from Bergson. Memory is not stored in the brain by| Victoria Trumbull on IAI TV might have been the real tipping point. I’m not sure how far I’ll develop this, but I wanted to capture my thoughts so I can refocus on my other topics, Parfit and Frege–Geach, to name two.

Audio: NotebookLM summary podcast of this topic.

NB: I feel compelled to walk the NotebookLM podcasters back onto the reservation with their ending flurry. I would never posit that humans (or beings) will ever have direct access to The Universe™. All access, per MEOW, is necessarily limited by mediational encounter.

Duration – in a sense that will require distinguishing from Bergson’s – is ontologically prior. It is not the absence of structure but structure prior to segmentation, ordering, and metric discretisation. Time – segmented into intervals, directionally ordered, and metrically structured – is what results when intervalic form is imposed upon duration. The imposition is representational rather than discovered: we do not encounter intervals in duration any more than we encounter grid-lines in a landscape. It is not imposed from outside experience but enacted from within it, through the structuring operations by which finite subjects render duration intelligible as time, and this includes succession itself. The ‘before-and-after’ of temporal experience is not inherited from duration but is itself a product of the intervalic cut – the minimal structure required for the grid to function as a grid. Without this stronger claim, the imposition would merely metricise an already ordered flow. Duration would then retain an intrinsic direction independent of the grid. The present thesis denies this: prior to the imposition, duration has no intrinsic ordering of the sort the grid later makes available. This does not make time unreal; it makes it derivative. What follows is an articulation of the temporal distinctions that become available once the imposition is in place.

Once the intervalic cut is made, experience within its frame exhibits an asymmetric structure. The present, the past, the future, history, and futurity are not features of duration itself but modes of access that become intelligible only within the imposed temporal grid. They may be stated compactly:

  1. Present – actuality at the dimensionless limit of the intervalic cut.
  2. Past – prior actuality, no longer extant, now only reconstructible from retention, trace, and surviving fragment.
  3. Future – possible actuality, not yet extant, available only through projection, expectation, and extrapolation from present constraints.
  4. History – lossy interpolation from fragmentary surviving traces of prior actuality.
  5. Futurity – lossy extrapolation from present constraints, tendencies, and uncertainties.

Because the grid resolves duration only partially and from a situated cut, both reconstruction and projection are necessarily lossy: the former inherits only traces of what has been structured, the latter extends only tendencies available from where the cut presently stands.

NotebookLM Infographic on this topic.

What ordinary experience calls the present is not, however, the dimensionless limit itself. It is a heuristic tolerance-band, a phenomenal spread across the cut that permits experience to function as though it inhabits a moment with extension. The strict present, as a product of the intervalic imposition, is an abstraction: a point that formal structure requires but that experience cannot occupy without borrowing width from duration. It is here, at the tolerance-band, that the imposition fails to fully displace what it organises. The failure is not accidental. Any representational scheme that discretises a continuous prior will underdetermine what it carves – there will always be a residue that the grid cannot fully resolve. The tolerance-band is where that residue is phenomenally evident.

The asymmetry between past and future is real, but it is real within the grammar of access generated by the intervalic imposition rather than as a primitive feature of duration itself. The past is reconstructed from what has obtained; the future is projected from what may obtain. A natural objection arises: if duration is truly without intrinsic direction, why is this asymmetry so stubbornly one-way? Why can we not reconstruct forwards or project backwards in any equivalent sense? The answer is that the imposition is not directionless even though what it is imposed upon is. The intervalic cut does not merely segment – it orders, and the ordering it introduces is irreversible because the cut is made from within experience, by subjects who retain traces of what the grid has already structured but have no corresponding access to what it has not yet reached. The arrow belongs to the act of imposition, not to duration itself.

A corollary follows for physics. Bidirectional temporal coordinates are artefacts of the intervalic grid, not discoveries about the deep structure of what the grid represents. That the equations of motion are time-symmetric means only that the formalism remains invariant under temporal reversal operations. It does not mean that duration is reversible, still less that time could ‘go backwards.’ The reversibility belongs to the representational instrument, the coordinate structure and its algebraic properties, not to what is being represented. To conclude otherwise is to read the map’s indifference to orientation as evidence that the terrain has none. Philosophical positions that take this inference at face value, the block-universe interpretation being the most familiar, inherit the error rather than originate it. The error itself is simpler and more general: the conflation of formal symmetry with ontological symmetry.

Situating the Argument

The foregoing account operates on terrain that others have worked before, and it owes debts that should be made explicit – not least so that the points of departure are equally clear.

The most obvious creditor is Bergson. The ontological priority of duration, the critique of spatialised time, and the insistence that metric structure is imposed rather than discovered are all recognisably Bergsonian commitments. The departure is equally plain. Bergson characterises duration positively as qualitative becoming, heterogeneous flow, interpenetrating states – a rich inner life that spatialisation distorts. The present account is more austere. It claims that duration is structure prior to segmentation and ordering, but it does not claim to know what that structure is like from the inside. Bergson thinks he can describe what the imposition conceals; the present thesis maintains that description is itself a structuring operation and therefore cannot reach behind the imposition it enacts. Duration here is an ontological commitment, not an experiential report.

Husserl‘s phenomenology of internal time-consciousness provides much of the apparatus for the epistemic layer. Retention and protention, the specious present, the constitutive role of temporal synthesis in experience – these are Husserlian structures, and the tolerance-band is in obvious dialogue with his account of the living present. The departure is that Husserl treats these structures as disclosing the temporal character of consciousness itself, whereas the present account treats them as artefacts of the intervalic imposition. For Husserl, retention is how consciousness holds the just-past; here, retention is a mode of access that the grid makes available. The difference matters because it determines whether the phenomenology is foundational or derivative. On the present account, it is derivative – downstream of the imposition, not prior to it.

The Kantian resonance is structural rather than doctrinal. The claim that the imposition is enacted from within experience by finite subjects, and that temporal order is a condition of intelligibility rather than a feature of things in themselves, places this account in the neighbourhood of the transcendental aesthetic. But Kant‘s time is a form of inner sense – a pure intuition that structures all experience a priori. The present thesis does not commit to this. It says the imposition is enacted by subjects but does not say it is a priori in Kant’s sense, nor that it is a form of intuition rather than (for instance) a contingent cognitive achievement or an evolved heuristic. The source of the imposition is left deliberately underdetermined at this stage, since settling it prematurely would foreclose possibilities the argument has not yet earned the right to exclude.

Finally, the critique of physics ontologising its own coordinate structure has affinities with van Fraassen‘s constructive empiricism – the insistence that empirical adequacy does not entail structural correspondence between formalism and reality. The affinity is genuine but limited. Van Fraassen is concerned with the epistemology of scientific theories in general; the present argument is concerned with one specific inferential error – the slide from formal symmetry to ontological symmetry – and it grounds that error in a prior thesis about the representational character of intervalic time that van Fraassen does not share. The diagnostic is narrower and the ontological commitment is stronger.

What the present account shares with all four predecessors is the conviction that the ordinary temporal framework – past, present, future, measured and directional – is not simply given. Where it departs from all four is in its specific diagnosis of what the framework is: a representational imposition. It structures a priori, it cannot fully displace, and is enacted from within experience by subjects whose epistemic situation is constitutively shaped by the imposition itself.

The Demise of Frege–Geach?

Posted in philosophyTagged , , , , , , , , , 2 Comments
4–5 minutes

Journal Entry

I published an essay on the Frege–Geach problem in February. I published an update yesterday. I still wasn’t satisfied, so I engaged with several LLMs. This was my approach.

The involved LLMs were:

  • Claude
  • Grok
  • ChatGPT
  • Gemini
Audio: NotebookLM summary podcast of this topic.
(This summary misses the mark in some ways, but it brings up some interesting observations along the way.)

First, I fed them some documents in no particular order, my goal being to share my own knowledge and position on the purported problem.

I started with Gemini. This was my prompt:

I am interested in resolving the Frege–Geach problem, but it seems I can only dissolve it. This doesn’t appear to be adequate for some analytical philosophers. How might I get closer to resolving it? My main argument is that they are assuming that language is stronger than it is, and they don’t agree with my argument.

As the prompt notes and by design, many analytical philosophers are reluctant to grant the degree of insufficiency I take to be constitutive of natural language, especially where logical embedding is concerned. Evidently, that counts as my not wanting to play their game. From my perspective, they are committed to a different ontological grammar. What this means practically is that I need to present my solution proposal in their terms. This doesn’t mean their terms are right; problems are only relevant in their dialect, even though my argument is that all dialects are lossy – mine included.

Part of the challenge is that formal logic was invented precisely because ordinary language is imprecise, yet its standards are often retrofitted back onto natural language as though they revealed what language must have been doing all along.

Without sharing the entire play-by-play of the transcripts, I established my course of action. I’d dissolved the problem, but I hadn’t yet resolved it.

My initial intuition of several years ago was to argue that they were expecting too much from grammar. I’ll use a well-worn example. Follow these statements:

  1. IF ‘Murder is wrong.’
  2. THEN ‘If murder is wrong, then getting your brother to murder is wrong.’
  3. SO ‘Getting your brother to murder is wrong.’

According to them, the embedded ‘murder is wrong‘ doesn’t make sense. Here’s their logic:

According to Ayer, moral statements are simply emotive. When one utters, ‘murder is wrong‘, they are really saying ‘Boo, murder‘ – ‘I don’t like murder‘.

If ‘murder‘ is defined as ‘killing disallowed by the state‘, then murder is wrong might be translated into ‘killing disallowed by the state is wrong’ or ‘what the state declares is wrong is wrong’, but we also know that the state makes many pronouncements, many of which carry no moral weight and others which are counter to expected moral positions – law does not equal moral, and vice versa. Let’s move on and revisit our statements:

  1. IF ‘Boo to Murder is wrong.’
  2. THEN ‘If boo to murder is wrong, then boo to getting your brother to murder is wrong.’
  3. SO ‘Getting your brother to murder is wrong.’

My intuition was that the embedded clause does not perform the same linguistic act as the standalone assertion, even if the lexical material is repeated. We’re committing a category error. More crucially, the category it belongs to doesn’t exist, so it’s unspecified. It needs to be invented.

Although I struggled to find apt nomenclature, I settled on performance-sensitive expressions.

A parallel challenge is that the solution can’t be a simple carve-out for moral language. Whilst I feel that moral language does use its own grammar and semantics, I don’t expect analytical philosophers to accept this assertion, so the solution should be more generalisable. I’d need to demonstrate where else this conditional logic fails in the same manner.

ChatGPT had this to say in response to a draft:

The comparative-cost section is good, but one sentence should be added to pre-empt the “your account also uses theory-laden notions” objection.
A critic may reply: your own terms, like “coherence zone” and “synchronisation protocol,” are also theoretical machinery. True enough. The difference is that your machinery is independently motivated and not introduced solely to patch Frege-Geach. You imply this already, but it would help to say so directly.

It offers clearer language:

Embedded moral predicates are not semantically identical to their unembedded counterparts, but neither are they inert; they are performance-sensitive expressions whose full evaluative load is attenuated under embedding while a thinner inferential profile remains available for reasoning.

In any case, I am still polishing the essay, dotting Is and crossing Ts. I think I’ve got the main argument and some examples. One of my weaknesses may be that I rely heavily on my own theories, but these are published and debatable on their own merits.

A real challenge of some problems and paradoxes is that they are self-inflicted. Faith that language is truth apt and lossless leads down many blind alleys.

Video: There Are No Objects… Or Subjects

Posted in perception, philosophyTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

What if the biggest trick language played on you is convincing you that the world is made of things?

Every sentence you speak installs a hidden assumption. ‘The rock falls.’ ‘The mind thinks.’ ‘The electron orbits.’ Each one presupposes a thing – a noun – that exists before anything happens to it. Your grammar tells you: first, there are objects, then they do stuff. But what if that’s backwards?

The Mediated Encounter Ontology – MEOW – proposes that it is. Reality isn’t made of things. It’s made of structured interactions. Encounter-events – relational, patterned, constrained – are what’s ontologically basic. Objects, subjects, minds, worlds: these are all downstream. They’re what you get when structured interaction stabilises within a given scale of encounter.

Watch the video…

The Procrustean Universe

Posted in philosophyTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment
5–7 minutes

How Modern Thought Mistakes Its Own Grid for Reality

Modern thought has a peculiar habit.

It builds a measuring device, forces the world through it, and then congratulates itself for discovering what the world is really like.

This is not always called scientism. Sometimes it is called rigour, precision, formalism, standardisation, operationalisation, modelling, or progress. The names vary. The structure does not. First comes the instrument. Then comes the simplification. Then comes the quiet metaphysical sleight of hand by which the simplification is promoted into reality itself.

Consider music.

A drummer lays down a part with slight drag, push, looseness, tension. It breathes. It leans. It resists the metronome just enough to sound alive. Then someone opens Pro Tools and quantises it. The notes snap to grid. The beat is now ‘correct’. It is also, very often, dead.

This is usually treated as an aesthetic dispute between old romantics and modern technicians. It is more than that. It is a parable.

Quantisation is not evil because it imposes structure. Every recording process imposes structure. The problem is what happens next. Once the grid has done its work, people begin to hear the grid not as a tool, but as truth. Timing that exceeds it is heard as error. The metric scaffold becomes the criterion of reality.

Audio: NotebookLM summary podcast of this topic.

A civilisation can live like this.

It can begin with a convenience and end with an ontology.

Carlo Rovelli’s The Order of Time is useful here precisely because it unsettles the fantasy that time is a single smooth substance flowing uniformly everywhere like some celestial click-track. It is not. Time frays. It dilates. It varies by frame, relation, and condition. Space, too, loses its old role as passive container. The world begins to look less like a neat box of coordinates and more like an unruly field of relations that only reluctantly tolerates our diagrams.

This ought to induce some modesty. Instead, modern disciplines often respond by doubling down on the diagram.

That is where James C. Scott arrives, carrying the whole argument in a wheelbarrow. Seeing Like a State is not merely about states. It is about the administrative desire to make the world legible by reducing it to formats that can be counted, organised, compared, and controlled. Forests become timber reserves. People become census entries. Places become parcels. Lives become cases. The simplification is not wholly false. It is simply tailored to the needs of governance rather than to the fullness of what is governed.

That’s the key.

The state does not need the world in its density. It needs the world in a format it can read.

And modern disciplines are often no different. They require stable units, repeatable measures, abstract comparability, portable standards. Fair enough. No one is conducting physics with incense and pastoral reverie. But then comes the familiar conceit: what was required for the practice quietly becomes what reality is said to be. The discipline first builds the bed for its own survival, then condemns the world for failing to lie down properly.

This is the Procrustean move.

Cut off what exceeds the frame. Stretch what falls short. Call the result necessity.

Many supposed paradoxes begin here. Not in reality itself, but in the overreach of a measuring grammar.

I use a ruler to measure temperature, and I am surprised when it does not comport.

The example is absurd, which is why it is helpful. The absurdity is not in the temperature. It’s in the category mistake. Yet much of modern thought survives by committing more sophisticated versions of precisely this error. We use tools built for extension to interpret process. We use spatial metaphors to capture time. We use statistical flattening to speak of persons. We use administrative categories to speak of communities. We use computational tractability to speak of mind. Then the thing resists, and we call the resistance mysterious.

Sometimes it is not mysterious at all. Sometimes it is merely refusal.

The world declines to be exhausted by the terms under which we can most easily manage it.

That refusal then returns to us under grander names: paradox, irrationality, inconsistency, noise, anomaly. But what if the anomaly is only the residue of what our instruments were built to exclude? What if paradox is often the bruise left by an ill-fitted measure?

This is where realism, at least in its chest-thumping modern form, begins to look suspicious. Not because there is no world. There is clearly something that resists us, constrains us, embarrasses us, punishes bad maps, and ruins bad theories. The issue is not whether there is a real. The issue is whether what we call “the real” is too often just what our current apparatus can stabilise.

That is not realism.

That is successful compression mistaken for ontology.

Space and time, in this light, begin to look less like the universe’s native grammar and more like the interface through which a certain kind of finite creature renders the world tractable. Useful, yes. Necessary for us, perhaps. Final? hardly.

The same applies everywhere. We do not merely measure the world. We reshape it, conceptually and institutionally, until it better fits our preferred methods of seeing. Then we forget we did this.

Scott’s lesson is that states fail when they confuse legibility with understanding. Our broader civilisational lesson may be that disciplines fail in much the same way. They flatten in order to know, and then mistake the flattening for disclosure. What exceeds the frame is dismissed until it returns as contradiction.

None of this requires anti-scientific melodrama. Science is powerful. Measurement is indispensable. Standardisation is often the price of cumulative knowledge. The problem is not the existence of the grid. The problem is the promotion of the grid into metaphysics. A tool required for a practice is not therefore the native structure of the world. That should be obvious. It rarely is.

Scientism, in its most irritating form, begins precisely where this obviousness ends. It is not disciplined inquiry but disciplinary inflation: the belief that whatever can be rendered formally legible is most real, and whatever resists is merely awaiting capture by better instruments, finer models, sharper equations, more obedient categories. It is the provincial fantasy that the universe must ultimately speak in the accent of our methods.

Perhaps it doesn’t.

Perhaps our great achievement is not that we have discovered reality’s final language, but that we have become unusually good at mistaking our translations for the original.

Imagine that.

Philosophics's avatar

Bry Willis

Philosophics

The Trouble with Ockham’s Razor

Posted in philosophy, podcastTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment
4–6 minutes

Few philosophical aphorisms travel as lightly and cut as confidently as Ockham’s Razor. “Do not multiply entities beyond necessity.” The phrase has the air of austere wisdom. It sounds disciplined, economical, rational. It promises clarity by subtraction. One imagines conceptual clutter swept aside by a single elegant stroke.

The Razor is attributed to William of Ockham, though like many slogans it has acquired a life far removed from its origin. In contemporary discourse it functions less as a methodological reminder and more as an epistemic trump card. The simpler explanation, we are told, is the better one. Case closed.

The trouble begins precisely there.

Audio: NotebookLM summary podcast

The Hidden Variable: Necessity

The Razor does not forbid multiplicity. It forbids unnecessary multiplicity. But who decides what is necessary?

Necessity is not a neutral category. It is already embedded within a framework of assumptions about what counts as explanation, what counts as sufficiency, and what counts as legitimate ontological commitment.

For one thinker, invoking a divine ground of physical law is unnecessary because the laws themselves suffice. For another, the laws are unintelligible without a grounding principle, and so God is necessary. Both can claim parsimony within their respective ontologies. The Razor does not adjudicate between them. It presupposes the grammar within which “necessity” is assessed.

The aphorism thus functions less as a rule and more as a reinforcement mechanism. It stabilises the commitments one already holds.

Parsimony Is a Heuristic, Not a Law

Science has often rewarded simplicity. Copernicus simplified celestial mechanics. Newton reduced motion to a few principles. Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism. These episodes encourage a romantic attachment to elegance.

Yet physics has also revealed a universe that is anything but tidy. Quantum fields, curved spacetime, dark matter, inflationary cosmology. Nature has shown little regard for our aesthetic preference for minimal furniture.

Parsimony, then, is pragmatic. It helps us avoid gratuitous complication. It disciplines theory formation. But it is not a metaphysical guarantee that reality itself is sparse.

To treat the Razor as if it carries ontological authority is to convert a methodological guideline into a philosophical dogma.

Structural Sufficiency Versus Metaphysical Surplus

The Razor becomes particularly contentious when deployed in debates about ultimate grounds. If a structural model explains observable regularities and survives empirical constraint, some conclude that any additional metaphysical layer is redundant.

This is a defensible position. It is also incomplete.

Redundancy in explanatory terms does not entail impossibility in ontological terms. A structural account of behaviour may render psychological speculation unnecessary for prediction, but it does not disprove the existence of inner motives. Likewise, a lawful cosmology may render a divine hypothesis explanatorily idle without rendering it incoherent.

The Razor trims explanatory excess. It does not settle metaphysical disputes.

Aphorisms as Closure Devices

Part of the Razor’s power lies in its compression. It is aphoristic. It travels easily. It signals intellectual seriousness. It sounds like disciplined thinking distilled.

But aphorisms compress complexity. They conceal premises. They discourage reopening the frame. “Follow the science.” “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” “Trust the market.” These phrases do not argue; they configure. They pre-load the space of acceptable interpretation.

Ockham’s Razor often operates in precisely this way. It is invoked not as the conclusion of a careful analysis but as a device to end discussion. The simpler view wins. Full stop.

Yet simplicity itself is indexed to perspective. What looks simple within one conceptual scheme may appear impoverished within another.

Tolerance for Explanatory Closure

There is also a psychological dimension worth acknowledging. Some individuals are comfortable with open explanatory ceilings. They accept that certain features of reality may lack ultimate grounding within their present framework. Others experience such openness as instability. They seek a final anchor.

The Razor favours the former temperament. It encourages ontological restraint and distrust of ultimate grounds. For those comfortable with structural sufficiency, this is liberating. For those who experience the absence of grounding as incomplete, it feels evasive.

The disagreement is not resolved by invoking parsimony. It reflects divergent tolerances for metaphysical closure.

When the Razor Becomes Inflationary

Ironically, the Razor can itself become an inflationary principle. It can elevate “simplicity” to a quasi-transcendental value. It can be treated as if reality owes us elegance.

At that point, the tool begins to govern the ontology rather than merely discipline it. The Razor becomes an article of faith, a universal heuristic immune to its own demand for justification.

One might then ask, with a certain symmetry: by what necessity is simplicity itself necessary?

A More Modest Use

None of this requires abandoning the Razor. It remains useful. It reminds us not to posit hidden mechanisms when observable structures suffice. It cautions against explanatory extravagance. It protects inquiry from baroque speculation.

But it should be treated as a heuristic, not a hammer. It guides theory construction within a framework. It does not choose the framework.

A more disciplined formulation would be this: when a structural account explains observed regularities under constraint and remains revisable, additional metaphysical posits do not increase explanatory power. Their adoption becomes a matter of ontological preference rather than necessity.

This preserves the Razor’s pragmatic value without inflating it into a metaphysical arbiter.

The Real Trouble

The real trouble with Ockham’s Razor is not that it cuts too much. It is that we often wield it without noticing the hand that holds it. We treat it as neutral when it is already embedded within a grammar of sufficiency, explanation, and legitimacy.

The Razor does not eliminate ontological commitment. It expresses one.

Recognising that does not blunt the blade. It merely reminds us that even the sharpest instruments are guided by the frameworks in which they are forged.

And frameworks, unlike aphorisms, are rarely simple.

Philosophics's avatar

Written by Bry Willis

Philosophics

Perish the Thought: You Didn’t Override Anything

Posted in philosophy, podcastTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 3 Comments
4–6 minutes

Je m’accuse. I find myself bickering on social media again. Zut, alors! Unfortunately, I struck a nerve with otherwise unidentified Adam. He may believe that I need to be right; rather, I’d like to help him not be wrong – presuming there are such states. In a post, Adam makes an assertion that one can override one’s, let’s call it, intuition. He ends with:

👉 Just don’t silence the most experienced pattern-reader in the room and call it maturity.

💭 What decision are you defending right now that your body already vetoed?

I feel that we are on the same page, or I wouldn’t bother to engage. The point I want to make with this blog article is that one does not override or veto one’s body. You rationalise what your body tells you to do. Just be careful with your language and how you frame it.

Audio: NotebookLM summary of this topic.

On why “reason defeating intuition” is a comforting fiction

There is a familiar story we tell about decision-making: First, the body speaks. A tightening. A lurch. A sense of foreboding or pull.

Then, reason arrives late, clipboard in hand, issuing corrective instructions:

  • ‘Be rational’
  • ‘Sleep on it’
  • ‘Run the numbers’

When things go badly, we narrate the failure like this: I knew. But I overruled it. This story feels true. It is also almost certainly wrong. Not morally wrong. Not introspectively dishonest. Conceptually wrong.

Image: NotebookLM infographics on this topic.

The experiential mistake

Let’s grant the phenomenology immediately. People routinely report that:

  • A decision felt wrong before it was articulated.
  • The articulation came later.
  • The eventual outcome carried an unmistakable sense of fatigue or dissonance.
  • Retrospectively, they say: I ignored the signal.

That experience is real. The inference drawn from it is not.

What the experience shows is temporal asymmetry, not architectural hierarchy. One process surfaces earlier than another. That does not mean a later process overruled it.

It means you are narrating a system whose operations are largely opaque to itself.

What the science actually killed decades ago

The idea that ‘reason’ steps in as a distinct, supervisory faculty that overrides intuition is not merely unproven. It is historically obsolete.

It belongs to the same conceptual family as:

  • The rational actor
  • The detached chooser
  • The inner executive standing above cognition

That family did not survive the twentieth century.

There is no independent referee.

Start with Herbert Simon, who dismantled the fantasy of global optimisation with bounded rationality. Human decision-making does not survey option-spaces and then choose. It satisficies under constraint. There is no god’s-eye view from which “reason” could intervene.

Move to Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, who made it painfully clear that what we call reasoning is deeply entangled with heuristics, framing effects, and affective weighting. System 2 does not rule System 1. It just writes better prose.

Add Thomas Sowell, whose critique of unconstrained rationalism was never about feelings versus facts, but about the fantasy of an overseeing mind unbound by trade-offs.

Or George Lakoff, who quietly erased the idea that political or moral reasoning could ever be disembodied in the first place.

Or Jonathan Haidt, who showed that moral reasoning overwhelmingly functions as post-hoc justification. The elephant moves. The rider explains.

Or Joshua Greene, whose dual-process models still do not resurrect a sovereign rational self. They show competition, not command.

Or Kurt Gray, whose work on moral perception demonstrates that what we experience as “judgment” is already structured before conscious deliberation enters the scene.

Across these literatures, one conclusion recurs with tedious consistency: There is no independent referee.

Why the “override” story feels so compelling

If reason does not overrule intuition, why does it feel like it does?

Because what you experience as “override” is competition between pre-reflective evaluations, not a coup staged by rationality.

Different subsystems evaluate:

  • social risk
  • loss exposure
  • identity coherence
  • narrative defensibility
  • anticipated regret

Whichever configuration wins becomes the decision. The explanation comes later. Calling that explanation “reason” flatters us. It also confuses sequence with sovereignty. When someone says, ‘I ignored my intuition’, what they usually mean is:

A later-arriving evaluation carried more weight than an earlier one, and I disliked the downstream cost.

That is not an override. That is the outcome.

Exhaustion is not evidence of rational domination

There is a popular add-on to the override story:

We override intuition, and that’s why we’re exhausted.

Again, the fatigue is real. The diagnosis is not. Cognitive fatigue does not indicate that reason heroically suppressed instinct. It indicates conflict resolution under uncertainty without stable convergence.

When multiple evaluative systems fail to cohere cleanly, the result is:

  • prolonged rumination
  • narrative patching
  • justificatory rehearsal
  • defensive rationalisation

That is tiring. Not because reason triumphed, but because coherence never fully arrived.

The real mistake

The mistake is not ‘trusting the body’ or ‘listening to reason’. The mistake is re-importing a discredited architecture because the introspection sounds nice.

You do not have:

  • intuition vs reason
  • signal vs override
  • body vs mind
  • elephant vs rider with veto power

You have distributed pattern-recognition systems, operating at different speeds, with different representational affordances, producing outputs that consciousness stitches into a story after the fact. The story is useful. It is not causal.

What is worth noticing

There is something worth salvaging from the original intuition-first narrative, once it’s stripped of myth.

Early signals matter not because they are purer or wiser, but because they encode long-trained pattern sensitivity that may never become fully articulate.

Ignoring them does not mean you “chose reason.”
It means another pattern won.

And sometimes that pattern is worse.

Not because it was rational.
Because it was legible, defensible, or socially safer.

No resurrection required

None of this requires reviving the rational chooser, the sovereign self, or Homo economicus with a new haircut. The work is already done. The literature is settled. The corpse stays buried. What remains is learning to live without the comforting fiction that someone, somewhere inside you, was supposed to be in charge. That absence is not immaturity. It is the condition under which decisions actually occur. And pretending otherwise only gives the clipboard another imaginary promotion.

Philosophics's avatar

Written by Bry Willis

Philosophics

When Deflation Becomes Ritual

Posted in philosophy, podcastTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

I recently shared a post calling out mystics, trying to fill spaces I deflate, but I am self-aware enough that I can be guilty, too. I worry about Maslow’s Law of the Instrument. Deflationary philosophy likes to imagine itself as immune to excess. It dissolves puzzles, clears away bad questions, and resists the urge to add metaphysical upholstery where none is needed. No mysteries, thank you. No hidden depths. Just conceptual hygiene. This self-image is mostly deserved. But not indefinitely. This post is an attitude check.

Because deflation, like anything that works, can ossify. And when it does, it doesn’t inflate into metaphysics. It hardens into something more embarrassing: a ritual of refusal.

Audio: NotebookLM summary podcast on this topic.

From method to mannerism

Deflation begins as a method:

  • A question is posed.
  • Its assumptions are examined.
  • The confusion is diagnosed.
  • The question dissolves.
  • Everyone goes home.

At its best, this is liberating. It frees us from chasing shadows and mistaking grammatical artefacts for ontological puzzles. The trouble begins when the gesture outlives the job.

What was once a diagnostic move becomes a stylistic tic. Refusal becomes automatic. Silence becomes performative. ‘There is nothing there’ is delivered not as a conclusion, but as a posture. At that point, deflation stops doing work and starts doing theatre.

I am often charged with being negative, a pessimist, a relativist, and a subjectivist. I am sometimes each of these. Mostly, I am a Dis–Integrationist and deflationist, as it were. I like to tear things apart – not out of malice, but seeing that certain things just don’t sit quite right.

Another thing I do is to take things at face value. As I came up through the postmodern tradition, I don’t trust metanarratives, and I look for them everywhere. This is why I wrote A Language Insufficiency Hypothesis (LIH), and even more so, the Mediated Encounter Ontology (MEOW). Some words carry a lot of baggage and connotation, so I want to be sure I understand the rawest form. This is why I rail on about weasel words like truth, justice, freedom, and such.

I also refrain from responding if I am not satisfied with a definition. This is why I consider myself an igntheist as opposed to an atheist. Functionally, I am the latter, but the definition I’d be opposing is so inane that it doesn’t even warrant me taking a position.

Image: NotebookLM infographic of this topic.

The prestige of saying less

There is a quiet prestige attached to not answering questions. Refusal sounds serious. Restraint sounds wise. Silence, in the right lighting, sounds profound. This is not an accident. Our intellectual culture has learned to associate verbal minimalism with depth, much as it associates verbosity with insecurity. Deflationary philosophers are not immune to this aesthetic pull.

When ‘I reject the question’ becomes a default response rather than a considered judgement, deflation has slipped from method into mannerism. The absence of claims becomes a badge. The lack of commitments becomes an identity. One is no longer clearing space, but occupying emptiness.

This is how deflation acquires a style – and styles are how rituals begin.

Apophasis without God

Mysticism has its negative theology. Ritualised deflation develops something similar.

Both rely on:

  • refusal to name
  • insistence on limits
  • reverent quiet

The difference is meant to be procedural. Mysticism stops at the silence. Deflation is supposed to pass through it. But when deflation forgets that its silence is provisional, it starts to resemble the thing it set out to criticise. Absence becomes sacred again, just without the cosmology. The metaphysician worships what cannot be said. The ritualised deflationist admires themselves for not saying it. Neither is doing conceptual work anymore.

A brief and unavoidable Wittgenstein

This is where Ludwig Wittgenstein inevitably reappears, not as an authority, but as a warning. Wittgenstein did not think philosophy ended in silence because silence was holy. He thought philosophy ended in silence because the confusion had been resolved. The ladder was to be thrown away, not mounted on the wall and admired. Unfortunately, ladders make excellent décor.

When deflation becomes ritual, the therapeutic move freezes into liturgy. The gesture is preserved long after its purpose has expired. What was meant to end a problem becomes a way of signalling seriousness. That was never the point.

A diagnostic test

There is a simple question that separates disciplined deflation from its ritualised cousin:

  • Is this refusal doing explanatory work, or is it being repeated because it feels right?
  • If silence leads to better distinctions, better descriptions, or better questions, it is doing its job.
  • If silence merely repeats itself, it has become an affect.

And affects, once stabilised, are indistinguishable from rituals.

Deflation is local, not terminal

The corrective is not to abandon deflation, but to remember its scope.

Deflation should be:

  • local rather than global
  • temporary rather than terminal
  • revisable rather than aestheticised

Some questions need dissolving. Some need answering. Some need rephrasing. Knowing which is which is the entire discipline. Deflation is not a worldview. It is not a temperament. It is not a lifestyle choice. It is a tool, and like all tools, it should be put down when it stops fitting the task.

Clearing space is not a vocation

There is a temptation, once a room has been cleared, to linger in it. To admire the quiet. To mistake the absence of furniture for the presence of insight. But clearing space is not a vocation. It is a task. Once it is done, staying behind is just another way of refusing to leave. And refusal, repeated without reason, is no longer philosophy. It is choreography.

Philosophics's avatar

Written by Bry Willis

Philosophics