Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Whoever wants to act and has to act in a world determined by “the ideas”
needs, before all else, a view of the ideas.
- Martin Heideggerii
ABSTRACT:
It is simply movement along a naturally given tangent. This is to be contrasted with freedom,
understood as the power to purposefully create one's own self and world, for one's self and
others. It is only in light thereof that one can live in harmony – actively in tune with a situation
as opposed to merely being at rest – and only toward such that one can revolt – moving from
In aiming for practical, realizable, and above all philosophical solutions to current world-
wide discord, I appropriate Wittgenstein's medium for visualizing situations. I believe that this
framework can be part of a practical solution to the seemingly spontaneous slide of our
shared world into unprecedented disorder. However, in order to employ this framework to this
end, further insights are required. For this reason, I turn to Heidegger, as he provides a
robust account of the process that Wittgenstein attempts to motivate in readers of the
Tractatus, transcendence
1.
First, let's consider spontaneity, specifically the relationship between spontaneity and
White – Universal Framework 2
nature. Spontaneity, as Heidegger tells us, is a “cause of nature.” It is a natural force. There
is nothing distinctly human about being spontaneous. Spontaneity is not a virtue – it cannot
be perfected. Spontaneity is not freedom – one need not work to realize it. In fact, for any
apparent similarity, there is nothing free about spontaneity at all. Spontaneity is necessity,
central role in considerations of chemical reactions. It marks the movement of any system
Spontaneity is everywhere – it makes our cars move and our water boil - regardless of this
powerful philosophical insights. Consider, in this light, Plato on the form of a chair. This
popular (and I believe deeply misunderstood) example – Socrates, sitting, thinking, reflecting -
recalls the 'zero-point energy' of physical chemistry, a figure central to the laws of
thermodynamics. Zero-point energy is the lowest-energy state that marks every thing's
idealized state of ultimate relaxation. It marks the ultimate order of that thing, sans the
twisting and turning of heat and friction, empty of kinetic energy, wherein the only energy
remaining is the electronic energy of the free-flow of electrons between connected atoms.
Electrons are the information carriers of the molecular system. So, the zero-point represents
a condition of unfettered internal reflection. At the crux of the comparison lies the fact that in
the laws of physics as in the forms of Platonic metaphysics, such a state occurs only in an
ideal space. In the space of physical chemistry, in an ideal vacuum. In the metaphysical
space of the Platonic universe, in the “form” of an idealized chair – a soft-cushy resting place,
far from everyday stressors, essentially in a vacuum of relaxation, ideal by design. Neither
White – Universal Framework 3
The physical characterization of spontaneity sheds light on the fact that spontaneity is not
“free.” Any movement toward stability and rest in some part of a system – such as toward
zero-point energy or toward some ideal chair - is only realized at the expense of the system
of energy, and is in fact the direct result of any closed system being what it is: closed. As one
part of a system reaches a relatively ordered state, the rest of the system becomes more
disordered to balance the movement. There is simply nowhere else for the energy to go.
only spontaneous insofar as the rest of that system can pay the energetic costs of this
movement. Where it cannot, such processes stop being spontaneous. Indeed, stop
altogether.
greater entropy means that any “spontaneous” reaction involves an overall (system-wide)
increase in disorder. Or, in terms closer to our present focus, in “discord.” In any case, such
processes are not purely self-initiated actions proceeding in a vacuum. And, most
importantly, they are not expressions of freedom, properly understood. They are, instead,
through pre-determined mechanisms, the result being that there is nothing free about them, at
all. Such are the consequences of the unfolding logic of the natural world.
processes, they are best not called “actions” at all. They are -as their natural counterparts -
Kant disqualified from properly “moral” action. Right action, ethical action, is never
spontaneous action. Spontaneous actions increase local order at system expense. Such is
war to preserve some tribally articulated “way of life.” Ethical actions increase systemic order
at local (individual) expense. Such constitute energy expended for the greater good, and the
most compelling thinkers in history have argued that a life spent so active, gaining sufficient
understanding to see it through, is the best life to live. Socrates, Mill, Kant, Aristotle,
Heidegger, Rousseau, and as I intend to show, Wittgenstein seem to think this way, and the
great social heroes of history, Martin Luther King, Jr., Socrates, Christ, the Buddha, seem to
After all, it is in the construction of orders – not in the spontaneous movement to disorder
- that the situations in terms of which we all live and act become “better.” One way of
energetic potential, in effect bringing more action paths into the realm of possibility, in effect
maximizing human potential, variously understood but especially poignant in terms of human
freedom. From relative order, relative orders are more easily established, simply because
one has the potential energy available to at least get the work started. Still, the construction
of higher orders is not a spontaneous act, even if the apparent pay-off in the construction of
The scope of the current presentation prevents adequate discussion, but a few words in
introduction will add to the context of the issues to be covered more completely later on.
Socrates, in the oft neglected second book of the Republic, offers his own vision of an order
worth constructing, a City worth living in, a just city, one in which he and others reside in
White – Universal Framework 5
harmony with one another, with nature, and within themselves. In so doing, his companions
protest that he proposes a state of affairs better suited for subhumans, failing to notice the
virtue in the Socratic vision. The sense is that Socrates is looking backwards, while his
interlocutors egg him onward in the name of progress. However, in a real sense, Socrates is
proposing a sort of revolution, while his friends instead wish to proceed according to the given
logic. In other words, it is the old man Socrates who is the progressive, as without change, no
matter how far they travel, everything remains the same, and the result is predictably not so
good.
It is from this point onwards that the Republic reads like an indirect proof against the
proposition that luxury and ease – the life of which Socrates' companions are accustomed – is
coextensive with justice. In the end, for all the talk of harmony along the way, the final plan is
for a city far from the vision one might assume is behind the original proposal, leaving the
reader, along with the interlocutors, in a state of disharmony within themselves. This leaves
open the possibility for a silent revolution, one reader at a time, so that vision of self and world
align with actions toward self and world. And, already, Plato has offered his view on the
necessary form of correction. Return to Socrates' program as outlined in the second book...
2.
In this context, then, let's inquire into two central terms: What are “harmony” and “revolt?”
Etymologically, “revolt” derives from “revolvere,” "turn, roll back." “Revolve.” Rather than
a unidimensional push away from some established order – as in “bolt” or “volition” - revolt
points to the beginning stages of a cycle, a revolution. It is not simply change for the sake of
change. Revolt has an end-state as its object, whatever this may turn out to be. Practically
speaking, as the first step in revolution, the specific details of this end-state need not be
White – Universal Framework 6
specified. Revolt is a movement, a change, toward something, but it is the part of this
movement prior to the any particular realization. As such, it can be understood as a mode of
transition between harmonies, with harmony being its only essential limiting condition.
Revolt is not “rebel.” “Rebel” can be traced to “rebellare,” "to wage war against."
Rebellion is purely destructive. It is change for the sake of change. It has no order in mind
disharmony - ranging from the adolescent testing of the necessity of certain given rules to the
more or less violent rejection of some state of affairs. Though it may when the dust settles
result in a sort of harmony - conditioned by chance – this harmony tends to be rather limited
Perhaps this is why the term “revolt” or “revolutionary” seems to fit with those who hold
the means for production, as in the popular revolt that is a grass-roots uprising. Such
associate with those who depend on others for their subsistence. Given this characterization,
Lucifer's story as represented in the Judeo-Christian myths is properly a “rebellion,” while that
of the Southern States in the U.S. Civil War a “revolt.” Accordingly, rebellion is spontaneous –
without a place to end up, but rather in it for the fight, alone - whereas revolt is not.
the Greek for “joint” as in “shoulder joint,” literally meaning "means of joining," and "to fit
together.” It is in terms of this original root that one speaks constructively of a person living in
harmony with her situation, environment or world, and of being in harmony with herself, her
harmony that one implicitly refers when one expresses such sentiments as “This place suits
White – Universal Framework 7
me” or “That sofa fits my living room nicely,” or even “I am down with that,” for instance. This
is that a thing “belongs” where it is, how it is, and why it is, and this is enough to indicate that
Harmony naturally precedes revolt. This adds to their relationship an unspoken sense
that, in every push there is a concordant pull towards a new home, whatever form that may
conditions are right, though the conditions that make harmony a possibility, indeed that
entertain any actual harmony, are constantly and spontaneously degrading, and the provision
for any harmony to be realized by design is not spontaneous at all. Revolt is in no way
sounds, can be sketched as a wave, or as multiple waves, of which the most ideal is a sine
wave. In the modern era of information technologies, Internet, fiber optics, cellular phones,
which sound is a basic example, and information in general is obvious enough: everything is
information. It is with this all-encompassing notion of “wave” that harmony takes up its full
scope. Thus, once again, one can be in harmony with her environment, her actions with her
statements, and statements can be in harmony with each other, with the context of their
utterance, and so on, as these can all be taken as forms of information (literally what enters
into a space and conditions that space, “in-” “-forming” it as the “it” that its is) and can all be
Meanwhile, waves can also be constructed from a revolving circle. Consider the
The waves, themselves, are created through revolution, in the two dimensional case an
oscillation, which can be simplified even to a greater degree as it is in binary logic into simple
“ups” and “downs” derived into “+” and “-,” “1” and “0.”
But, consider the case involving a system that is not so minimally-dimensional. What are
the conditions providing for the harmony, the establishment of a system-wide harmonic, in the
first place. A purely logical architecture comes by way of Wittgenstein, but a purely physical
White – Universal Framework 9
model can be appropriated from molecular models. In either case, the energetic highs and
lows are associated with the various transformations that a system undergoes (imagine a
molecule wiggling about in physical space with its strained states corresponding to the high-
points on the diagram, low-points with relaxed conformations, and so on). By way of the
second diagram, one can imagine a system in motion as it runs through its various
conformations in order, with (the order of) the resulting wave a result of (the order of) its
ongoing revolution. Where everything is in perfect balance, there are ups and downs but
none are unexpected, with none representing an essential change in the revolving system
In so far a human beings act according to these characterizations of harmony and revolt,
even the simple diagrams above are telling. The high points indicate high-energy (strained,
stressed, conflicted) states. The low points indicate states of rest. The energy to mount the
high-humps can come from either inside of or outside of the system in question. For instance,
a man may climb a mountain by train or on foot, of his own volition or under a slaver's whip.
In either case, at the end of the day, we all must sleep. But only when self-initiated with a
3.
works. And, as a work, it aims for more than to merely do something, it aims to get
something done. Even the name ”Tractatus” recalls a machine that does work, “tractor,”
appearing to be a synthesis of “tract-” and “apparatus,” with “tract-” coming from the Latin
“tractus” literally meaning "a drawing out or pulling," derived from the root “trahere” "to pull,
draw." Thus, even by cursory analysis, “Tractatus” is a working machine, an apparatus for
White – Universal Framework 10
pulling. The work that Wittgenstein aims to do with the Tractatus is to pull the reader against
the tide of a natural, comfortable, spontaneous embeddedness in the logic of the world as
Now, this bears some explanation, but one thing is clear: the Tractatus is not a simple
iteration of facts. It is rather an exposition on the orders of facts, with the purpose to expose
the participation of the subject in the creation of said orders. The promise here is that – from
such an understanding – one can then order these orders, rather than be ordered by them.
The promise is nothing short of freedom, as it is only from freedom that any potential for the
ethical emerges. However, realizing this freedom is hard work. Thus, the need for a pulling
machine.
Given this introduction, one surprising fact about Wittgenstein is that he maintained that
his Tractatus was phenomenology. Now, this immediately presents us with a problem. What
is phenomenology? Well, the best account of phenomenological method that I have come
across comes from J.N. Mohanty, from 1970. Here, he tells us that the phenomenological
philosopher is faced with a paradox, to simultaneously inhabit the world even as he describes
the experience with an eye toward explaining how it is that anything like it could be possible in
the first place. This paradox involves being subject to the conditions that one at once
participation and transcendence ... in fact provides the key to phenomenological philosophy.”iii
product of the processes out of which they emerge. The resulting picture is essentially
content non-specific. It provides for any possible experience. This makes the
phenomenological picture more than a picture, on the one hand, as it is the grounds from
which innumerable pictures might arise, and not a picture at all on the other, as it is not a
White – Universal Framework 11
Bearing this account with the Tractatus together in mind, it is clear that Wittgenstein was
doing phenomenology. The model that he provides describes how it is that things appear to
be the things that they appear to be, and his ultimate aim is to do so sans any particular
determination. He offers us a ladder with which we can “pull” ourselves to a point of view
whereby we can see that the world is the product of our own self-determination. This is
where ethics begins. It is hard work. And, as work, it is contrary to the natural movement of
of all things, people included, to slide spontaneously down into comfortable places of rest.
Let's see what Wittgenstein's method amounts to. First off, he is working in the medium
of natural language, but quickly opens potentially effective media to include any mode of
picturing is not practically different from other ways of picturing reality (4.011), most
importantly in the means of their application through what Wittgenstein calls the “law of
projection.”(4.0141) We “project” pictures into actions, thereby creating reality that mirrors the
picture.(2.02, 4.04) And, it should be noted, this “projection” goes both ways. One can as
easily create a score from a musical performance as perform music from a score.
The possibility of projection hinges on the fact that “propositions”(which can be any form
presupposes some situated subject. Propositions are tested against experience, in a sort of
ongoing “experiment.”(4.031) What is tested is the “tableaut vivant,” the living picture book of
names as it represents their namesakes and their relationships in so far as they compose
situations, that is in so far as they are the spaces in terms of which we live our lives. It is a
“great mirror” of the world.(5.511) And, as a book is a whole, even if we have only read a few
of its pages, so the situations that we imagine compose the world as a whole, wholly
White – Universal Framework 12
outstripping our ability to picture it, explicitly (even as the visual field of a mirror comprises a
whole, yet mostly lies outside of one's explicit recognition as he attends rather to some
particular aspect, typically having to do with himself and his appearance, within it).
It is in the space of the world as a whole that things exist – nothing shows up where and
how it is by accident! - as it is in the space represented by the media of our imagination that
the possibilities of things exist.(3.411) Imagination – and the world so pictured - is effectively
represented, in terms of which thought proceeds, and this structure extends throughout
(thought and world).(3.42, 4.51, 5.123) Moreover, not only is thought so limited, but also
action is so limited – one cannot do, or at least think about doing, plan to do, what one cannot
in the first place think.(analogy, 4.463) So, the experiment that is the testing of propositions
against reality determines the truth/falsity not only of what we think and say, but equally
delimits all that may be done, indeed prefiguring the structure of the world which by this
structure limits possible actions undertaken therein, and possible worlds to sought through
view:
White – Universal Framework 13
NONSENSE
NONSENSE
Consistent expansion
This is, in simple terms, a map of the world, and of those processes consistent with it.
Note that the nodes are set, and able to establish standing waves, harmonies, throughout.
This entire system, as such, is a sort of resonant box (albeit, in any realistic terms, a hyper-
dimensional one!)
What follows from this simple picture is that, living in accord with and embedded in
harmonies as anything other than disharmonies (without some means for their representation,
such as this one). Likewise, Wittgenstein explains that it is impossible for us to imagine an
However, he does leave open a pathway to picture the un-picturable. Implicit in his
discussion, we can see that for us to try to picture something that violates the logical order of
White – Universal Framework 14
a space, we must change the logical order of that space in which we think.(by implication from
3.031, 3.032, 3.033, 3.0321) We must, as it were, think outside the box – rather than in 3
regular dimensions, in 4, or 11, for example. We must think a different sort of space. How?
There is only one way – expand the bounds of the thinkable, and this cannot come from
thought, alone. It cannot proceed form the inside, out. Indeed, one must first open to the
experience an “illogical” situation not as “illogical,” but as another logic -possible rather than
impossible - in order to introduce its conditions, attune one's self to such, and finally to be
We must, in other words, “transcend” prior limitations. Now, what would this amount to?
The short answer is that one must apply the inverse of the law of projection – let the music
inform the score, for example – to the limits of experience – let experience inform the logic, for
example. And this means putting one's self in what may have been unthinkable situations, so
that one might, as a result, be able to think them. This process bears further elucidation, later
on.
How is it that a transcendence of subjective experience can surpass the limits of the
world as a whole? Because one way in which the world is limited is by way of the subject,
himself. Wittgenstein tells us that “The subject does not belong to the world: rather, it is a limit
of the world.”(5.632)iv The implications here are twofold. One is that this limit can change.
The other is that the world belongs to us, and as our limits change, so does the world.
It is from the first implication that we can understand Wittgenstein's late assertions about
ethics:
Ethics involves the subject, and nowhere in the picture of the world does the subject
actually appear.(5.633) Ethics involves what can and cannot be done, rather than what exists
and does not exist.v It involves relationships between things and the subject as he engages
with them, between subjects, and especially within a subject, himself (as in the person who
one is, and the person who one might become through action). These are not issues about
the world, but about something(s) outside of it - namely us, namely not an object suitable for
From the second implication, a few things follow. First is that there need be a special
field within which the subject of the “subject” can be entertained. The subject and its
transcendental potential are not the object of the natural sciences, as these involve setting
limits to the thinkable, working from the inside, out.(4.114) The subject is the property of
philosophy (which is not part of the natural sciences, 4.111), which in the case at hand can be
This – inside of ourselves through philosophy – may appear an odd place to look for the
world. But, it is only in philosophy that the self becomes clear as “the metaphysical subject,
the limit of the world – not a part of it.”(5.641) And, it is only in the exercise of self-limitation
If the good or bad exercise of the will does alter the world, it can alter only the
limits of the world, not the facts—not what can be expressed by means of
language. In short the effect must be that it becomes an altogether different
world. It must, so to speak, wax and wane as a whole. The world of the happy
man is a different one from that of the unhappy man.(6.42)
Through action – and note here that Wittgenstein is explicit, “good or bad,” pointing to the
ethical import of action – it is the “limits” of the world, the self that changes. As the self
changes, as a self, the world changes as a world. It is one for one, situated and situation, the
logic of the self on the inside, and the logical extension of this self throughout. It is in this
White – Universal Framework 16
way, in the philosophical understanding of self, that the world is understood, just as it is in the
ethical transformation of self that the world is changed. And, it is finally in this light that
The limit (self) surpassing its limits (self) is “transcendence.” The picture that
Wittgenstein paints, thus, is a tool for transcendence, and thus for the proper appropriation of,
4.
In light of the preceding, we should update our initial considerations of harmony and
revolt. First, Wittgenstein offers a convenient medium within which considerations of harmony
and revolt can be envisioned. One can be in harmony with his situation in so far as his
picture of his situation stands the test of his experience of that situation. Ideally, in light of
disconfirming experience, a self may alter his world picture, so that his world-view would
Now, one more point need be made in light of these results. The world to which one
revolts need not be imagined in great detail, but it must be imagined as a world. Whole. As
Wittgenstein tells us in 5.526 - “We can describe the world completely by means of fully
generalized propositions, i.e. without first correlating any name with a particular object.” viii We
need not specify where everything will be, and in what relation. The difficulty lies in seeing
the world as such, sans particulars, sans content, sans any predetermination besides that
White – Universal Framework 17
implied by the self conceiving it. The difficulty lies, in other words, in seeing the world
primarily ethically, rather than materially. And, it is transcendence that leads to this possibility,
For now, consider once more Wittgenstein's analogy of the musical score. In any
composition, any number of notes might fit. But, only some contribute to a thing of beauty,
one musical movement rather than a series of intonations. And, though one may
as a single integrated whole. One must rise above the series of notes, and see the whole
movement as a whole, first, albeit without every note pre-ordained. Add to this that
Wittgenstein equates ethics with aesthetics, and we are left with a striking implication: that
harmony is at the core of world construction, from self outwards, and that transcendence is
indeed revolt, as revolt aims for harmony, with revolution an ethical movement to not only a
“higher” self, but a better world. With harmony the fundamental consideration, the exact
placement of precise notes, as the precise placement of necessary things and the perfect
execution of right action, need not be pre-ordained. These things will happen, as a matter of
ongoing accord.ix
But, analogies can only take us so far. What is this thing, transcendence? How is it that
one comes to a view of the world as a whole, rather than as parts and locales? And, what
Heidegger's assay of transcendence fits well with the preceding, allowing us to pick up
where Wittgenstein has dropped us off. Transcendence is “surpassing” limits. x It shares its
form with our initial assay of “revolt:” “Formally speaking, surpassing may be grasped as a
“relation” that passes “from” something “to” something.” xi What is moved from and to is one's
self: “Transcendence constitutes self-hood.” xii And, again consistent with the preceding
White – Universal Framework 18
transcends means: in the essence of its being it is world-forming...”, and “To transcendence
there belongs world as that toward which surpassing occurs.” xiii From this relation between
self and world emerges the possibility of freedom: “Surpassing in the direction of world is
freedom, itself.”xiv And, as it is of the essence of a person to transcend given limits in the
creation of the world in which one's self, and others, are situated, it is from this transcendental
ground that arises the possibility of ethics through the responsibility one consequently bears
for the creation of self and world, and thus due to the obligation one feels to maximize the
potentials of both “such that in the essence of [one's] existence [one] can be obligated to
[one's self], i.e., be [a] free [self].”xv Finally, it is from this unbound view of the world as a free
self, responsible in one's freedom and obligated to maintain it, that one comes to a single
unifying, undetermined yet “far from being arbitrary” vision of the world as a whole, echoing
This wholeness is understood without the whole of those beings that are
manifest being explicitly grasped … in their specific connections, domains
and layers. Yet the understanding of this wholeness, an understanding that in
each case reaches ahead an embraces it, is a surpassing in the direction of
world.xvi
In this surpassing of the limits of self and world, in the unifying vision simultaneously held
above particular determinations yet yielding complete understanding of both in the fullness of
their potential, the world presents itself as – in typical Heidegger-speak – the “for the sake of”
which a person live and acts. “If … it is surpassing in the direction of world that first gives rise
to selfhood, then the world shows itself to be that for the sake of which [a person] exists.” xvii
Indeed, it is only from within the world, as such, that any action “for the sake of” one's self,
this, that, or another, is or ever can be initiated. The world consists in the objects of actions,
as well as their beneficiaries. And it is for the benefit, in the end of one's self, that anything is
White – Universal Framework 19
done, at all.
The “for the sake of” is the “for the good of,” with the world providing the who and what,
and the self limiting the how and why. It is this limiting how and why that motivates
transcendence. It is the limits of what can be done, for the good of one's self, the world, and
others that not only could be but should be surpassed. Thus, it is both from and toward the
world, “entrusted with having to be,” responsible for one's own life in and through that world,
that the unifying vision of self and world reduces to the possibility of realizing one's potential in
life. And thus, it is of the essence of self to surpass itself in th creation of the world out of
obligation to itself to remain free so that it can continue to do this very thing.
One must live. One must live in a world. One should live a life worth living in a just
world. It is only in the last case, the ethical, that any unified vision of the world as a whole is
necessary. And finally, it is only in light thereof, as the vision that is the product of
transcendence, that harmony – in the aesthetically articulated ethical sense, above – and
Let's contrast these results with spontaneity. Heidegger likens spontaneity to “the
something by [the thing] itself.” xviii Spontaneity seems to be a kind of freedom, but it is not. It
lacks a “determinative cause lying further back.” xix The determinative cause that is the
difference is the “self” that is the beginning and end of transcendence. That is, spontaneity
does not proceed from the grounds of a self with a view to the world as a whole, self included.
It does not “reach out” and “embrace” the world in its wholeness. It only proceeds, from its
place, to a place in the world. There is no sense of the unity – indeed identity - of this place
with all others, no sense of self as self responsible for self and world that motivates
expression of the given, logical extensions of the norm, a local projection of a pre-given form.
To those who are awake there belongs a single and therefore common world,
whereas whoever is asleep turns toward a world of his own.xx
Of course, this waking life isn't an easy one. It involves living in discord with the masses,
rousing them from their slumbers. It is not a “spontaneous” life. One doesn't just fall into it,
as one falls asleep. Indeed, “fallenness” is an especially important term in the Heideggerrian
Most people spend most of their time in a fallen state, and seek it when it has somehow been
interrupted. Fallen, a person chatters on about things that don't matter and that make no
difference (as they are effectively pre-determined as logical extension of the given), marks the
time of his life in days and years (rather than by effective influence toward a better state of
affairs), does what seems appropriate (rather than what is necessary), and in the end
measures success or failure in terms of the lack of disharmony between himself and the
“average” that is the standard of the faceless “they,” his fellow “man” (rather than in terms of
the effective discharge of his nascent - ethical, transformative – potential). It is easy. It takes
As is well known, fallenness is the negative focus of Heidegger's basic project in Being
and Time. The positive focus is on the genuinely authentic life, that being a life lived with the
courage to have a conscience, to take responsibility for one's self and most importantly for
his/her world - to take up one's place in the history of one's culture, transform this culture
through discovery, thereby directing the movement of one's world along its historical
progression toward a world worth living in, a just world. The genuinely authentic life is, in a
This life is not measured in its comfortable closeness with the mean, or harmony with
convention. Rather, it is a life attuned to what might be, to higher possibilities, of which one's
own involves working to maximize those of others. It is a life of movement, on the way to
something through hard work and dedication. It reaches ahead, embraces the world as a
whole, and reaches back at once, transcendent, a “tractor” pulling the world up the steep
slope to a higher order. It is a life of difference, that makes a difference. A life in revolt, of the
revolutionary.
Standing apart in revolt does not imply casting aside one's fellow man. Indeed, it is only
in the steady, hard ascension to wisdom that the needs of others can be kept in constant
view. In other words, one must maintain a certain difference from the mean in order to have
an eye on where it is going. The ethical import of this point of view bears a striking
implication. Revolt is not only a part of an ethical life. It is the ethical life. Heidegger puts
Listening differs from hearing. One must listen “for” something, or “to” something.
Hearing simply happens. It takes a lifetime of study, a lifetime of constant inquiry, into one's
self and into those around him that finally leads to the sort of wisdom which permits a person
to actually act toward let alone to realize this potential. One must know what to listen “for,”
who to listen “to.” One must, as Heidegger asserts elsewhere, “understand” in order to be
able to “listen.” And, one doesn't spontaneously understand, any more than one
spontaneously and by chance becomes a person worthy of reverence, living a life worth living
White – Universal Framework 22
in any philosophical sense. Accordingly, one does not spontaneously pull the world to a
higher order, any more than one can by chance anticipate the needs of all those around him
and to come. Ethical life is active. One must work at it. Or, put more appropriately, one must
work at it.
The differences between the life of spontaneity and revolt can be pictured.
In picturing the course of the non-spontaneous life, it would serve to recall the simple
wave illustrated in figure 1. Moving from fallen state in relative harmony to ever higher orders
of understanding, in effect puts the wave on an upward slope, with the difference in elevation
from start to finish a measure of the work put into the process. The pay-off is proportional to
the height of the ladder climbed, minus perhaps the cost to one's self to get there. The higher
one goes, the harder the climb. In picturing its opposite, one can simply imagine as similar
wave on a downward slope, with the pay-off the energy released as measured by the
Of course, life is not a single slide or climb, but a series of them, performed in various
dimensions and to various ends throughout the course of life. The picture that emerges,
accordingly, is that of a stepwise progression, ladders up and ladders down. The life in
consistent climb, ascending in the right dimensions at the right times, reaches the heights of
In comparing these pictures, two things stand out. First, on the way down, the leading
edge of every “trough” is lower, and thus the barrier set before the process is less, until at a
certain decline the barrier disappears completely such that transitional stabilities are so
fleeting as to represent no space for rest at all. Such a life is more shoot than ladder.
Second, on the way up, these same barriers to progress are higher.
Energy pours out of the system. And, in rising upwards, it shows that energy must be put in.
This energy must come from somewhere, and in the preceding we have seen that it comes
from us.
Now, let's project the implications of the preceding discussion on the basic framework
from Wittgenstein as depicted in figure 3. Imagine that the nodes (A, B, C, D, …) establish
standing waves between them, the regular dimensions between them ensuring that the wave-
forms between each pair of nodes add constructively with those of every other pair.
presenting itself as a whole in terms of this harmonic. Now, imagine that, for every type of
sound their accords a certain feeling, or mood. And, imagine that you have taken up the view
of the world that is the product of transcendence, having climbed Wittgenstein's ladder. It is in
accord with your mood that the world, undetermined but in no way arbitrary, presents itself as
a whole. Self and world in effect set up in resonance, and from these initial conditions that
are brought to the world through transcendence, the world into which one transcends is
always and already one's home. This is the metaphysics of harmony, the beginning and end
a better world not simply because this world can be better, but because it should be better.
However, few persons seem willing to spend a life working to build a better world. To
expend such energy, without guarantee of material success, is not a proposition which many
are even able to entertain. It is nonsense. Perhaps it is for this reason that transcendence is
most often equated with the mystical, the spiritual, the supernatural if not the non-natural or
flat-out fantasy. And equally, that the spontaneous life, burning the world at both ends and
White – Universal Framework 24
reaping the rewards for personal enrichment at the expense of all else and others, is the
norm.
5.
What we have seen in both Wittgenstein and in Heidegger are pictures of means by way
of which persons can bring order to the world in the face of its natural, spontaneous
expansion along a pre-given logic. Against this natural progression, both set the
transcendental potential of man to remake self and world, “aright.” It is our potential to “order”
order. The world worlds through the exercise of our potential to create, and to re-create, our
selves. It is in creating the conditions for ourselves to be able to do what we feel we should
do that we are ultimately free. It is only from these grounds in terms of which there is any
harmony, and likewise in the loss of which from which there is any motivation for revolt.
Freedom is the ground of ground.xxii This freedom, as the world that results from it, belongs to
us.
It is only in view of the world, as a whole, of the self as a whole, together waxing and
waning as a whole (to recall Wittgenstein at 6.43), that any possibility for harmony and revolt
exists. It is in this exercise that the Tractatus serves as a ladder of transcendence to see self
and world aright – essentially one. To this, from this point of view, Heidegger compels us to
exercise our human freedom. Take up current grounds, and transcend their limitations to
realize ever higher potentials. And, as the highest aspect of human nature, there is nothing
spontaneous, nothing “natural” about its realization. Climbing is never as easy as falling. It is
hard work. Thus, the great benefit that is a logical pulling machine.
In discussing “world” and “transcendence,” Heidegger takes recourse through the history
the ultimate reality of which is the object of the spiritual transcendence for which the religious
apparatus itself is to serve a the ladder. There, he reminds us that “world” in the Christian
context specifically refers to the condition of man removed from God, dislocated from an
ultimate home, “being human in the manner of a way of thinking that has turned away from
God.” And, from this tradition, the distinction between the man of the world and the man of
God is reified, until – paraphrasing as Heidegger quotes from John 1:10 – it is possible that
God has created the world, and is in the world, but that the world of man would not recognize
him.xxiii
Now, there are two ways in which this is possible, and we can picture these with help
from the preceding discussion. The first is that the logic that is co-extensive with the divine
creation is so ubiquitous that is is passed over. What is common to everything does not stand
out as a thing, on its own, demands no name for itself, and as such is something obvious only
in the silence with which it is regarded. The other way is that the world of man has deviated
so far from the order underwriting it that any statement of this original order presents itself as
nonsense, and illogical. Given the context, that man is dislocated from the conditions of his
inception, only the latter remains viable. After all, only from this starting place is a return
Further, this second possibility is consistent with the overall picture that life in the natural
world proceeds in the face of the constant, spontaneous degradation of order. The fallen
condition of mankind is merely a by-product of this fact, due to human weakness of will failing
to aspire to higher orders. Given this universal constraint, it is also no coincidence that all
religions point upward, inspiring people against their naturally ordained decline. The general
White – Universal Framework 26
proposition common to every religious ideal is the open, unconditioned architecture of the
spiritual world, the promised-land at the end of transcendence to a higher order. It is clear
from the preceding that this is where human potential lies, regardless of religious affiliation.
Upwards is our home, whatever its eventual determination. What is lacking is merely our
Here, I wish briefly to remark on the limiting conditions of particular religious artifices in
play, today. Some religious myths, in so far as their logics pervade history, and predetermine
any history in the making, may appear to point upward but rather are dragging us all,
collectively, downward. Specifically, in so far as some religious grounds exclude others, going
so far as to entertain some necessary destiny belonging solely to “God's chosen people,” the
potential for harmony, and consequently for revolt, is nullified. It is not surprising, thus, that
the people who operate within this logic pursue war, motivated by a divine bigotry, denying to
those others, presumably God's un-chosen a home, as well as any possibility of ever
returning to a home. Even as they, themselves, cry that they had been denied a home, they
leave only one option for the rest of the world, rebellion. And history slides ever faster down
For anyone not trapped on either pole to this conflict, of which there are increasingly few,
the possibility of revolt remains. It is not the general architecture of religion that must be
scrapped, only these particular determinations which, by way of their consistent expansion,
cannot pursue the higher path that is the great promise of human potential, and the great
purpose of religious apparatus in the original sense. This is to pull persons up, to motivate
them to work against the natural erosion of the ideal, to establish ever higher orders,
Indeed, this is the purpose of the present paper, of my current research program, and of
White – Universal Framework 27
philosophy as a whole.