Ontological Shifts: Healing Our Relationship Crisis

Welcome to rewilding philosophy, your newsletter on ^ekophilosophical health for our times. Today’s article is very theory heavy. Yet, I believe it's crucial for understanding the crisis in our relationships and our role within it. I hope you enjoy. As always, I appreciate your thoughts on this.

---

The meta-crisis is better described as a relationship crisis. If we want to improve our relationships, the question emerges who is in relationship? Depending on where I draw the boundaries of the self, I might not even be able to be in relationship with.

For example, there is a popular notion that we are all one and that we need to experience this oneness in order to overcome the environmental challenges. Once we see that we are one - typically with nature - we won’t continue harming her.

Yet, mere oneness - without separation - also erases the possibility that there could even be any relationship.

In short: Oneness cancels relationships.

In order for there to be any relationship at all, there needs to be separation and difference.

Onto-Stories

Wether we perceive everything as one or not is ultimately an ontological question. And while ontology cannot be separated from an ethico-onto-cosmo-axio-anthopo-imagaginary-epistemological áskesis, it nonetheless makes sense to develop a deeper understanding of each of these categories in themselves. Only because they determine each other doesn’t mean that they are the same.

Ontology is a theory of existence, being, or reality. It means thinking about what things really are. For example, when you think about what makes a chair a chair or what makes a person a person, you're thinking about ontology. It's a way of exploring and understanding the basic categories of existence and the relationships between them.

Fun fact, I broke off my first studies, because of a class in ontology. Took me only 20 years to come back to it.

Anyways, ontologies are theories of existence that generally stem from philosophy, religion, and physics. The political theorist and philosopher Jane Bennett calls these onto-stories.

Onto-Stories Differ

Key distinctions across onto-stories include whether existence is perceived as transcendent or immanent in origin, singular versus plural in expression, and static versus dynamic in state.

Transcendent implies that the origin of existence lies beyond what currently exists, while immanent suggests that the origin of existence is intrinsic to what is actual. Singular expression signifies a bounded source of existence that cannot be divided, whereas plural expression indicates the presence of multiple sources of existence. A static state suggests that existence simply "is" (being) and its core truth can be determined through different methods. In contrast, a dynamic state suggests that existence is always evolving (becoming), which we can only understand through temporary truths.

In short, the ontological distinctions are:

• Static - Dynamic

• Immanent source - Transcendent source

• Singluar expression - Plural expression

• Being - Becoming

In the West, discussions of these opposing characteristics can be traced back to the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers Parmenides and Heraclitus who offer differing conceptualizations of the nature of being and understanding of existence.

Based on an allegorical revelation from the goddess Truth, Parmenides claims that reality is a unity. Thus, there is and can only be one Truth. He also posited that the source of being is transcendent— separate from the physical universe and that our perceptions of change and difference are merely an illusion.

In contrast, Heraclitus, considered by some as the forerunner of process philosophy, believed that reality is ever-changing and constantly evolving over time. This ongoing transformation results in a multitude of truths. According to him, the only universal principle is change, and everything in existence is continuously in a state of becoming and dissolving, leading to a particular harmony or equilibrium at each moment. Despite this continuous change, Heraclitus observed a consistent essence underlying each state, suggesting a unifying thread of becoming that manifests in various possibilities. Hence, he viewed the source of existence as immanent but relational.

These two ontologies - which are obviously simplified in these paragraphs - are said to be the foundations of which our ontologies derive.

Four Onto-Stories

The competing ideas generate four positions that describe existence in quite different ways.

Based on the work of Margaret Stout and Jeannine Love

Our mechanistic, materialistic ontology in the Western world—referred to as atomistic—assumes there is no source of being beyond physical and biological elements. It posits an external reality that we can directly access through observation. This perspective is grounded in the ideas of Parmenides, who claimed there is one unchanging truth to discover and that reality is static. As a result, he is considered the father of Western philosophy and the positivist science that we pursue in academia today.

Buddhist and Hinduism ontologies in contrast are holographic. They view all of creation as a complete reflection of the transcendent source of existence. This Absolute source (the One) includes everything that could exist and everything that is currently existing, infusing all aspects of reality. The Absolute is in a continuous state of dynamic change. There is an ontological unity between the divine and mundane elements of the universe, meaning that what appear to be separate parts are not truly distinct. Fragmented ontologies, in contrast, can be described as postmodern that basically reject all essential or foundational truths.

The following table shows how these different onto-stories show up in different philosophical schools.

How do these Onto-Stories Shape the Self?

Based on these different ontologies, our idea of what the self is and how we understand the self differs.

• Hierarchical Ontology: The self is viewed as part of a larger collective whole, connected to a transcendent source. It is seen as a singular expression within a structured, unchanging hierarchy. The self's role and identity are static and defined by its place within this collective order.

• Holographic Ontology: The self is understood as part of a collective, but with a focus on a dynamic, ever-changing relationship with the transcendent source. Each individual reflects the whole and is constantly evolving. The self is seen as a singular expression within this dynamic, interconnected reality.

• Atomistic Ontology: The self is seen as an individual entity with an immanent source of being. It exists independently with its own unique attributes. The self is perceived as one of many distinct, static entities that make up reality. Each self is separate and operates independently from others.

• Fragmented Ontology: The self is viewed as an individual entity with an immanent source, characterized by a plural and dynamic nature. It is constantly changing and evolving, fragmented into multiple, shifting aspects. The self is one of many diverse, fluid entities that make up reality, with no fixed or permanent identity.

The way I understand the self stems from Bernardo Kastrup’s ideas on analytic idealism. I have mentioned him in my last post. His view of the self diverges from materialist and dualist perspectives. According to Kastrup, the self is fundamentally a manifestation of a universal consciousness. Analytic idealism posits that reality is fundamentally mental and consciousness is the primary substance of the universe. This consciousness is not personal but rather an impersonal field of experience from which all individual experiences arise. The self, therefore, is a localized pattern or dissociation within this universal consciousness. Each self is essentially an experiential perspective within the universal consciousness. This perspective is what we experience as our individual self or personal identity. It is not separate from the universal consciousness but rather a partitioned segment of it. His ideas align with a holographic ontology.

Within the holographic ontology, entities are distinct yet relational, autonomous yet interdependent. I think this tension is essential for ekoPhilosophical health. German neuroscientist Gerald Hüther, for example, argues that both autonomy and belonging are crucial for happiness. We need to experience ourselves as both autonomous and interdependent.

Shifting our Onto-Stories

In Western society, the focus has been on increasing our autonomy (based on atomistic ontology), which has brought many benefits. However, we are now recognizing that our relational, interdependent nature is equally important. Thus, addressing our relationship crisis requires recalibrating our ontology towards those relational, holographic ontologies. As I mentioned above, our ontology is entangled (ethico-onto-cosmo-axio-anthopo-imagaginary-epistemological áskesis), so when we attempt to recalibrate our ontologies, we will also need to recalibrate those other dimensions, but more about those another time.

What I often observe is a reactive, almost forced, shift from atomistic towards holographic ontologies. This shift is prompted by a desire to emphasize unity and relationality, as if there was not also differentiation. It’s an understandable reaction to a history of viewing things in isolation. However, like I mentioned in the introduction, without differentiation, there is no relationship. Both matter.

To me, the shift away from an atomistic towards a holographic ontology (namely analytic idealism) is an ongoing process. While reading and learning vastly about this shift, it wasn’t until I began having experiences that aligned with the holographic ontology, until it actually felt real. The reading and learning I had done allowed me to make sense of those experiences. In the end, it was a combination of phenomenology paired with (hopefully) logical rigour. Something I think any good philosophical insight consists of. I can read about different ways of experiencing the world all I want, without the experience, it doesn’t quite land. That’s why philosophy is also always an embodied practice. But that’s for another discussion.

Appendix

To write this article and to get a better sense of how different schools of philosophy think about the self, I created the following table. It ended up not fitting into the article, but I wanted to share it anyways for those of you who are curious about the details of the role of self in different philosophies.

Platonism

Plato viewed the self as an immortal soul that exists independently of the body. In his dialogues, particularly "Phaedo," he describes the soul as the true essence of a person, capable of existing before and after the body's life.

“Aristotlism”

Unlike Plato, Aristotle saw the self more in terms of a combination of body and soul. In "De Anima" (On the Soul), he argues that the soul is the form of the body, implying an integrated relationship between the two.

Rationalism

René Descartes famously declared, "Cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). He argued that the self is fundamentally a thinking substance, distinct from the body. With that, many argue that he is one of the main philosophers who shaped our separation to the more-than-human world.

Empirism

David Hume challenged the notion of a permanent self. In his "Treatise of Human Nature," he argues that the self is nothing but a bundle of perceptions in constant flux. According to Hume, there is no underlying self that experiences these perceptions; the self is just the collection of experiences.

Transcendental Idealism

Immanuel Kant introduced the concept of the transcendental self, which is necessary for the organization of experiences. In his "Critique of Pure Reason," he posits that the self is an organizing principle that allows us to perceive the world in a coherent manner, though the self itself cannot be directly known.

Existentialism

Jean-Paul Sartre viewed the self as something that is continuously created through actions. In "Being and Nothingness," he argues that existence precedes essence, meaning that we define ourselves through our choices and actions rather than having a predetermined essence.

Phenomeno-logism

Martin Heidegger saw the self in terms of "Dasein" (being-there), which is always situated in a particular context or "being-in-the-world." In "Being and Time," he emphasizes the relational and temporal nature of the self, focusing on its engagement with the world.

Post-Structuralism

Michel Foucault examined how the self is shaped by social and historical contexts. He argued that the self is a construct influenced by power relations and discourses. In works like "Discipline and Punish," he explores how societal institutions shape individual identities.

Analytic Philosophy

In "Reasons and Persons,” Derek Parfit argues against the idea of a fixed, continuous self. He suggests that personal identity is not what matters; rather, psychological connectedness and continuity are what we should focus on. The self is thus more of a series of connected mental states than a singular, unchanging entity.

Buddhism

Buddhist philosophy often denies the existence of a permanent, unchanging self. The concept of "Anatta" (non-self) suggests that what we consider the self is merely a collection of changing phenomena, including thoughts, feelings, and physical sensations, without any enduring essence.

Hinduism

Some schools of Hindu philosophy, such as Advaita Vedanta, argue for an eternal, unchanging self (Atman) that is identical with the ultimate reality (Brahman). The self is fundamentally spiritual and transcends the physical world.

Confucius

Confucius defined the self by one's roles and responsibilities within a network of relationships. He emphasized moral development and social harmony.

Taoism

The self is an integral part of the Tao, a fluid and ever-changing aspect of the natural order, best understood through simplicity and harmony with the universe.

Ubuntu

The self is inherently connected to others, encapsulated in the phrase "I am because we are," emphasizing communal interdependence and shared humanity.

Kogi’s Philosophy

The self is deeply interconnected with the natural world, viewed as part of a larger living system where all beings are interdependent and must be respected.

Wicca

Wiccans believe that the self is not isolated but is deeply connected to all aspects of nature and the universe. This includes other beings, the environment, and spiritual entities. The self is seen as a part of a larger web of life, where every action and intention has an impact on the whole.

Eco-Feminism

The self emerges through “intra-action," as suggested by Karen Barad, meaning it is not a pre-existing, isolated entity but is constituted through dynamic, relational processes with other beings and the environment.

^ekoPhilosophy

The self is relational and differentiated, one and separate.