Fragmentation into Various

Ways of Being

Exploration of the Subsistence of Gists as Internal

Difference in the Deleuzian Problematics of
Platonic Ideas within the Inward Existence of
Sophia of the Nonrepresentable Intelligibles phase
of Ratio in the Divided Line

Kent Palmer Ph.D.

kent@palmer.name
http://kdp.me
714-633-9508
Copyright 2017 KD Palmer1
All Rights Reserved. Not for Distribution.
WaysOfBeing_A_01_20171117kdp04a
Started 2017.11.08-09-17; Unedited Draft Version 02;
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5298-4422
http://schematheory.net
http://nondual.net
Researcher ID O-4956-2015

Key Words: Continental Philosophy, Deleuze, Fuzzy-Trace Theory, gists, subsistence, Divided Line, Plato,
Ways of Being, Fragmentation of Being

1 http://independent.academia.edu/KentPalmer See also http://kentpalmer.name

1
One is always wanting an interlocuter2. In this case someone who takes the idea of the different
kinds of Being seriously. And it seems that Kris McDaniel3 in The Fragmentation of Being4 is
such an interlocuter in his essay Ways of Being5 from the Analytical Philosophy camp. In the
Continental Philosophy camp the idea that there are different kinds of Being or different senses of
Being is taken to be quite obvious due to the interest in Fundamental Ontology within that tradition.
But of course, in Analytical Philosophy this, and so much more, is considered nonsense, they seem
to prefer empty ideas6. In this essay we will consider what McDaniel says about Ways of Being,
taking him seriously as he deserves. Here we will concentrate on what was surprising in his essay
which led to further insights into the problems dealt with in my own philosophy. Basically, in his
essay he defends the part of the tradition which takes seriously the idea that there are different
ways, senses, categories or kinds of Being. He suggests that these might be seen as different
modalities of the Existential Quantifier (Bx). And he lists different kinds of Being suggested by
Heidegger such as subsistence, living, existenz of Dasein, ready-to-hand (handiness) and present-at-
hand (extant). Here we will not so much dispute with McDaniel as use his work as a starting point for
further elaboration of a view already well developed in my own works that there are meta-levels of
Being. And particular I want to concentrate on the question of the difference of the meta-levels of
Being from other ways of Being such as subsistence7, existenz, living and others such as the sociable
(socius8), i.e. mitsein. This is a question I have not delved into to any depth previously.
In general, my own journey into these deep waters comes from my exploration of Continental
Philosophy and the topic raised by Heidegger in Being and Time9 of Fundamental Ontology10 which
is a theme in Metaphysics running through the works of Plato, Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-
Ponty, Derrida and Deleuze, as is another theme more recently discovered of Genetic Phenomenology
with which I have become fascinated. In general, taking a historical viewpoint, we can trace
Fundamental Ontology from Being and Time of Heidegger where he posits that there are two
different Ontological Categories or Kinds of Being, present-at-hand (extant) and ready-to-hand
(handiness) which relate to nonhuman (non-dasein) things but also perhaps non-living and perhaps
also non-social (non-mitsein) things. What is related to humans (dasein) is not ontology but Existenz

2 See Fragmentation of Being and the Path beyond the Void. https://works.bepress.com/kent_palmer/2/ It appears that Kris
McDaniel is the first to take seriously the problem of the Fragmentation of Being which I tried to address in the early 1990s.
See also https://www.academia.edu/13194091/Meta-levels_of_Being
3 http://www.krismcdaniel.com/

4 McDaniel, Kris. The Fragmentation of Being. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2017.

5 http://krmcdani.mysite.syr.edu/wob.pdf Ways of Being was the first paper to come out of this period. In it I do three

things. First, I show how contemporary metaphysicians can make sense of the doctrine that there are ways of being by
appealing to the notions of naturalness (developed by David Lewis and Ted Sider) and restricted quantification. Second, I
explain the meta-ontology of Martin Heidegger circa Being and Time in terms of the framework I develop. Third, I discuss some
and defuse some common objections to the view that there are ways of being. Finally, I propose possible avenues of further
research. http://www.krismcdaniel.com/research-page/
6 Unger, Peter. Empty Ideas: A Critique of Analytic Philosophy . Oxford : Oxford Univ. Press, 2017.

7 I had not focused on the fact that subsistence was a way of being in Being and Time before. This essay will explore the

implications of that way of Being in relation to the others that relate to the Divided Line of Plato.
8 https://www.academia.edu/34904546/Primordial_Sociality_and_Intersubjectivity_Exploring_the_Socius

9 Heidegger, Martin, John Macquarrie, and Edward Robinson. Being and Time. Malden: Blackwell, 2013. Kisiel, Theodore

J. The Genesis of Heidegger's Being and Time. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995.
10 Clark, James. The Problem of Fundamental Ontology. Toronto: Springtime Publishers, 2008.
2
(existence) in an original sense of ecstasies of projection. This projection produces the horizon of the
world within which dasein finds itself yet which it has itself projected. Our own work pretty well
accepts Heideggers presentation of this situation and his critique of Husserl as producing a
philosophy that was caught up in the present-at-hand (extant) mode. Heidegger wants to solve the
problems of Husserls Phenomenology by getting to a stage of unfolding of existence prior to the
distinction between subject and object. This is a level at which because the separation between
subject and object has not yet occurred that the problem of solipsism of subjects will not have arisen
yet, thus solving a major problem in Husserls formulation of Phenomenology. Because present-at-
hand (extantness of Pure Being of Parmenides, i.e. pointing) and ready-to-hand (handiness of Process
Being of Heraclitus, i.e. grasping) has not yet arisen with respect to things and we have not yet begun
to treat other human beings as things, but assert a Thou relation rather than an It relation to all
Others, then there is not yet a separation between self and other that might produce solipsism.
Cognitive Studies have noted that we treat living things differently than non-living things. And
Husserl wanted to maintain that we have empathy for other subjects and this was the bridge across
the solipsist divide. But Heidegger wants to maintain that not only are living things treated differently
by us but also other conscious and intentional beings (dasein) and social beings (mitsein).
Essentially, we can say that for us as human beings that combine the properties of living, intentionally
conscious and sociable that our existenz precedes other types of Being that we project on non-living,
non-social, not conscious things.
But the focus of our own work has been looking at the extension of this way of looking at ontology in
Fundamental Ontology with the expansion by steps of the kinds of Being to include Hyper Being (in-
hand, bearing as the Differance of Derrida) and Wild Being (out-of-hand, encompassing as the chiasm
of reversibility in the transcendental field in Merleau-Ponty, and Transcendental Empiricism 11 of
Immanence12 of Sense in Deleuze). This series ends in Ultra Being which is being explored by Zizek
and Badiou based on Lacanian influence. The basic idea is to use the Ramified Higher Logical Type
theory of B. Russell (cf I. Copi13) to understand the basic kinds of Being that are discovered in the
history of Fundamental Ontology. And we also understand this as the basic structure of the world
within which we live, i.e. the Western worldview. The focus of our studies has been to try to
understand the structure of the Western worldview from within in its own terms, i.e. as articulated
by the Continental Philosophers who themselves are trying to understand it. The key point is that all
the Kinds of Being related to things that are non-human, non-living non-intentional and non-
conscious are projections of illusion specific to the dynamics of our Western worldview and distinct
from Existence. And the key point is to understand that Being is in fact an Indo-European linguistic
categorical invention specific to one historical group of people and their proto-Indo-European
culture that developed into Western linguistic and cultural tradition. We note that Being and Having
in Indo-European languages are the most fragmented word roots, and this means that these concepts
of Being that were forged are artificially produced by a historical process in this one cultural and
socially unique human population whose expansion across the prehistorical landscape can be traced.

11 Rlli, Marc, and Peter Hertz-Ohmes. Gilles Deleuze's Transcendental Empiricism: From Tradition to Difference .
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016. Bryant, Paul R. Difference and Givenness: Deleuze's Transcendental
Empiricism and the Ontology of Immanence. Ph. D. Loyola University of Chicago, 2003.
12 Deleuze, Gilles, and Anne Boyman. Pure Immanence: Essays on a Life. New York: Zone Books, 2005.
13 Copi, Irving M. The Theory of Logical Types (Routledge Revivals). Hoboken: Taylor & Francis, 2011.
3
This is the first thing that should be said about Being. Being is not a universal as presupposed by most
of Western Philosophy. In fact, we have found that the Indo-European roots that make up Being have
a structure which is *Es/*Er//*Bheu//*Wes/*Wer14. This means that there is a distinction which is
Natural between the roots that make up Being within the Indo-European linguistic and cultural
sphere that is prior to the distinction between the categories. And this is the fundamental problem
with considering the question of the Meaning of Being ahistorically. Without considering linguistic
and cultural phenomena we get the idea that Being is universal, that it is the same as Existence, and
that its subsistence is ahistorical, i.e. essentially Pure Being, and thus wholly categorical. Our own
approach has been to delve into the intrinsic messiness, concreteness and haecceity of history of
Being within our worldview in order to try to understand its actual meaning to us within this
worldview.
This leads to a complicated picture that revolves around the core of the Western worldview which is
the Divided Line of Plato. Pure Being or present-at-hand is associated with the kind of knowledge
that Aristotle calls Epistemic related to Science and Representable Intelligibles (RATIO) in Platos
Divided Line. Today we think that this is the only kind of Knowledge, but Aristotle mentions a
plethora of various kinds of knowledge that just happen to coincide with the phases of Platos Divided
Line. Another kind of knowledge is Techne controlling Poiesis and is thus related to Process Being or
the ready-to-hand, usability, and that is related to Grounded Opinion or Appearances (DOXA). But
there are parts of the Divided Line not related to either Pure or Process Being which are ungrounded
appearances or opinions (DOXA) which is related to Phronesis of Praxis which is embodied by the
existence of Dasein. And there is in fact another phase of the Divided Line not treated by Heidegger,
but which is instead the focus of Cassirers third volume of Philosophy of Symbolic Forms15 called
Sophia of Virtues and which is related to the non-representable intelligibles (RATIO) which we can
also relate to the subsistence of abstract concepts seen as problematics to be approached
dialectically. Thus, we can see that there is a pattern in the various kinds of Being that Heidegger
mentions. That they map to the various phases of the Divided Line of Plato as understood through
the kinds of Knowledge defined by Aristotle 16 . Heidegger does not treat sophia directly in his
philosophy because he thinks that they are present at hand a priories only. He does not appreciate as
Cassirer did that these a prioris can change emergently producing new a proris over time and so they
are worthy of mention. However, we can map the subsistence of abstract concepts to these non-
representable intelligibles whose type of knowledge is sophia that must be approached via the
dialectical investigation because they cannot be captured by definitions. We can see that the nature
of Dasein is also that it is embedded in Mitsein or the Sociable 17 (Socius 18 ) and that it is also
encompassed by Living. And thus, the various ways of Being of humans that ecstatically project Being

14

https://www.academia.edu/14407561/Primal_Ontology_and_Archaic_Existentiality_Looking_into_the_roots_of_Being_Existen
ce_and_Manifestation
15 Cassirer, Ernst. The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms . New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011.

16 Aristotle, , and W D. Ross. The Nicomachean Ethics. Los Angeles, California: Enhanced Media Publishing, 2017.
17 https://www.academia.edu/34904546/Primordial_Sociality_and_Intersubjectivity_Exploring_the_Socius
18 Deleuze, Gilles, Mark Seem, Felix Guattari, Helen R. Lane, Michel Foucault, and Robert Hurley. Anti-oedipus: Capitalism
and Schizophrenia. London [etc.: Bloomsbury, 2013.
4
as illusion beyond existence are related to the properties of the Special Systems19. We can think of
the difference between subsistence of abstract ideas as related to internal existence while the kind
of existence related to dasein has to do with external existence. Thus, even though Heidegger does
not confer existence per se on sophia it sneaks in as subsistence of abstract ideas. This goes along
with our idea that the Foundational Mathematical Categories 20 are etched into the bedrock of
existence and not touched by Being. But the key is that half of the Divided Line related to Science, i.e.
the two equal central phases relate to the Ontological modes of Being (Pure Being of Epistemic
Science and Process Being of Techne of Poiesis). The other two phases of the Divided Line are related
to Religion which are existentials rather than ontological modes related to Sophia of Virtues and
Phronesis of Praxis. This division of the Divided Line in relation to Religion and Science is part of the
reason for the eternal conflict between these ways of seeing the world. The Divided Line
encompasses both Religion and Science together, i.e. both existential and ontological ways of relating
to things.
As you can see there is some depth here in as much as it explains some fundamental elements of our
worldview whose core is the Divided Line which encompasses the limits of experience. But there is
more. There are limits to the Divided Line. One is related to Metis and Mixture while the other is
related to Nous of the Numinous and Supra-rationality. In our worldview we are obsessed with
Mixture as Contradiction (Process Being), Paradox (Hyper Being), Absurdity (Wild Being) and
Impossibility (Ultra Being). But we forget about the supra-rational which is extreme non-mixture
(pure disjunction) in which two things are true, real, identical or present, at the same time without
interfering with each other. Notice that the cross over states prevented by supra-rationality from
mixture are related to aspects within Doxa. But we can also say that Supra-rationality is the cure for
mixture which is the limit of Doxa. On the other hand, non-representables such as the virtues are
entangled like mixtures. Higher Nonduals of Being tend to be non-representables. Mixture and non
mixture tend to define each other as complementarities within the structure of the Divided Line. Doxa
(belief) is associated with the aspects of Being which are identity, presence, reality and truth. Ratio
on the other hand are associated with the nonduals of Being which are order, right, good, fate which
then extends into the supra-rational as sources, and root. And this is where we begin to learn how
the other kinds of being relate to the Divided Line. Hyper Being is the expansion of being-in-the-world
discovered by Heidegger and developed by Lacan and Derrida but also discovered by Merleau-Ponty
in The Phenomenology of Perception21. He goes on in The Visible and Invisible22 to define Wild Being
as the dual of Hyper Being. Wild Being is the contraction of being-in-the-world. Thus, these esoteric
kinds of Being discovered by Fundamental Ontology is about the expansion and contraction of the
Divided Line and are thus orthogonal to the Divided Line itself rather than appearing within it as do
Pure and Process Being. Ultra Being is the singularity toward which Wild Being contracts. On the
other hand, Hyper Being expands toward the horizon of the World. From this you can get an idea of

19 https://www.academia.edu/3795281/Special_Systems_Theory
https://www.academia.edu/34804726/Reflexive_Autopoietic_Dissipative_Special_Systems_Theory
20 https://www.academia.edu/34831961/EMERGENT_DESIGN

21 Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception. London: Forgotten Books, 2015.

22 Low, Douglas B. Merleau-ponty's Last Vision: A Proposal for the Completion of the Visible and the Invisible. Evanston, Ill:
Northwestern University Press, 2000. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, Claude Lefort, and Alphonso Lingis. The Visible and the
Invisible: Followed by Working Notes. Evanston [Illinois] : Northwestern University Press, 2000. Barbaras, Renaud. The
Being of the Phenomenon: Merleau-ponty's Ontology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2004.
5
how the esoteric concepts of Hyper and Wild Being relate to the more mundane concepts of Process
and Pure Being. These are other ways of being beyond those posited by Heidegger in Being and Time
discovered in the historical unfolding of Fundamental Ontology. The various meta-levels of Being
were captured in my 1982 LSE dissertation called The Structure of Theoretical Systems in relation to
Emergence23. After returning to the USA after receiving this degree I became a Software and Systems
Engineer and in the process of that practice discovered that Computer Hardware encompasses Pure
and Process Being, but that the Being of Software is rooted in Hyper Being and that Artificial Life,
Intelligence, Sociality etc. have the nature of Wild Being. But then later I wrote a book called The
Fragmentation of Being and the Path beyond the Void24 which was based on the discovery that the
different gods in the Vedas are separated by the Meta-levels of Being this led to looking for the meta-
levels of Being in Indo-European Mythology through a method called ontomythology. In the process
of writing this very long book I discovered the Special Systems which then became the focus of my
research. Later that led to the development of Schemas Theory (http://schematheory.net) and that
was the basis for my second dissertation called Emergent Design (http://emergentdesign.net) which
applied Meta-levels of Being, Schemas Theory and Special Systems Theory to understanding the
process of Design through Quadralectics and Pentalectics developed by extension out of Hegels ideas
of Dialectics and Trialectics of Work.
So, the key thing I learned from Ways of Being was that the idea of subsistence of abstract concepts
and ideas was related to Sophia. And that the various ways of being of dasein, as living, and as mitsein
(sociality, socius) is another way that the Special Systems informs the work of Heidegger. The focus
in my work of the various meta-levels of Being: Pure, Process, Hyper, Wild, Ultra for non-dasein, non-
conscious, non-intentional and non-social things has obscured the nature of these existentials and
the pattern that they assume in Being and Time. The meta-levels of Being is what dasein projects on
things. But dasein is simultaneously living, conscious with intentions, and social, i.e. has the
properties conferred by the Special Systems. But it was actually the subsistence of abstract ideas or
concepts that at first threw me when I read Ways of Being, before I realized that this was the way
that the non-representational intelligibles appeared as inward existence of Sophia of Virtues that was
the dual of the outward existence of social, living, consciously intentional dasein. And this subsistence
of the problematics that we gloss as ideas according to Deleuze that give us our concepts is what gives
us what we know as the Platonic Realm of source forms. This means that the source forms subsist
with an existential mode of duration and thus they are not present-at-hand as had been suspected.
Deleuze attempts to show that concepts have Wild Being. Derrida attempts to show that they
exemplify Differance or Hyper Being. Many theorists consider that they have Process Being. But we
want to follow up on this idea that they subsist. Let us clarify our terminology. Ideas definitely
through the concept of Infinity exist as Pure Being at infinity as illusory continuity, and in repetition
as copies appear within Process Being as they approach the asymptote. Deleuze specifically says that
concepts move through their sub-concepts at infinite speed in What Is Philosophy?25 We know that
concepts are seen as either metaphors, exemplars, prototypes or partial ideas26. One way that we

23 http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/3174/
24 https://independent.academia.edu/KentPalmer/Fragmentation-of-Being-BOOK
25 Deleuze, Gilles, Felix Guattari, Hugh Tomlinson, and Graham Burchell. What Is Philosophy? London ; New York : Verso,,

2015.
26 Murphy, Gregory L. The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, Mass: MIT, 2004.
6
have expressed the differentiation of the Idea in the past is IDEA = Form, Sign, Trace, Propensity,
Grit. Each level underlying the illusory continuity of the Idea is at a different meta-level of Being.
Form is at the level of Pure Being but it is also a Schema. Sign is at the level of Process Being but is
also part of the Pattern Schema. Trace is at the level of Hyper Being as we know from Derrida but is
also part of the Monad Schema. Propensity is at the level of Wild Being but is also part of the Facet
Schema. To this we must add something like Grit to be at the Ultra Being level and it is part of the
Null Schema, i.e. is unschematized. IDEA is something at the level of the System Schema in as much
as the frames of the motion picture go by at 30 frames per second to produce the illusion of continuity
we see in Cinema. The System Schema has its dual in the Meta-system schema just like the projector
and the screen are both needed in order to produce the illusion seen by the prisoners in Platos cave,
i.e. the cinema goes who appreciate and become immersed in film at the movies which are now also
talkies. The domain we are talking about is Entertainment. And that is part of our world in which we
produce entertainments to distract each other which is a big business, i.e. a substantial part of the
world. But interestingly this idea of projection embodied by cinema is the nature of Dasein as one
who projects the world that he is then found within himself. Some of us produce films and others of
us watch them. But those who produce films also watch them. So, there is in the film industry an
adequate model of Dasein which engaged with others (Mitsein) produce films that they themselves
watch and become immersed in and Plato himself prophesied this in his analogy of the cave. This is
essentially the mechanism of Ideology within society or philosophically of Idealism. Along with this
analogy was the analogy of the Sun and the Divided Line where by Plato defined the levels of
experience and attempted to define the area in which the source forms exist. But what is interesting
here at this juncture is that if we recognize the difference from the ecstasy of Dasein from the kinds
of Being in terms of outward existenz, i.e. projection outward in existence. Then we can speculate
that in the realm of sophia of virtue which is the non-representable intelligibles of Ratio there is a
subsistence of the problematics as strange attractors that serve to give rise to the ideas which
produces reified abstract concepts through ideation. We would like to refer to the kernel of these
subsistences as gists as in Fuzzy-Trace Theory 27 . We accept that we do not really remember
concepts long term as much as the gists of arguments and ideas. And we see these gists as something
like the internal existentials, or injections rather than projections which are external existenitals. And
we posit that these gist injections are the real basis of the source forms of Platos ontology. They are
not ontological in the least but existential, but they have a kind of existence that is the dual of that of
Dasein being injections rather than projections. And in a sense, these are like essences which are
described as perfectly diacritical systems like those in projective geometry, but instead rooted in
existence understood as ecstasy by Heidegger. Is there an opposite of ecstasy which is an infolding
rather than an unfolding (outfolding). We can think there is because there is the production of seeds
which is a concentration that is meant to unfold into a plant when it grows. This is the biological
source of the word semen which is the basis of semantics and related to meaning. We might imagine
that the opposite of the projective geometry that is like the essence is an injective geometry that

27 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Fuzzy-trace_theory Bjorklund, David F. False-memory Creation in Children and Adults:

Theory, Research, and Implications. New York, NY: Psychology Press, 2012. Brainerd, C J, and V F. Reyna. "Fuzzy-trace
Theory and Children's False Memories." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology . 71.2 (1998): 81-129. Evans, Alyssa E,
and Valerie Reyna. Fuzzy-trace Theory and the Neural Basis of the Framing Effect in Adolescents . M.A. Cornell University
February, 2016. Massey, M R. Transfer and the Fuzzy-Trace Theory. St. Louis, Mo: University of Missouri--St. Louis, 2007.
7
would be seen as a point topology and thus related to matroids. We have already elsewhere pointed
out that the relation of monads to facets are based on the Matroid group. The dual of Matroids are
Greedoid categories. Matroids define the possible geometries that exist. Greedoids ingather points
into a topological relation and are very efficient algorithms for dealing with many problems that can
be NP complete like the traveling salesman problem. Thus, the matroid would be seen as a model of
the gists infolding. We can also compare it to the idea of Bohm in Wholeness and the Implicate
Order28 or Polanyis idea of tacit knowledge29. So, there are already others thinking along these lines.
But they do not have the idea that they are talking about an existential kind that is somehow the dual
of dasein that is a gist produced by infolding that appears as a problematic within the realm of non-
representable intelligibles that are understood based on sophia of the virtues. There is a virtue
associated with each phase of the Divided Line. Courage is the virtue related to Phronesis.
Temperance is the virtue related to Techne. Justice is the virtue related to Episteme. And Wisdom is
the virtue related to Sophia. In other words, Sophia as a kind of knowledge, Wisdom, is its own virtue.
It is precisely these virtues that Plato says that we cannot define adequately and that appear as a
problematic that is ultimately pointing to something that is non-representable with which we are
concerned. Dialectics approaches the definition of these virtues but never reaches a final position.
The closest we get as Adorno says is various antinomical oppositions arrayed in a constellation.
Instead there is a gist, an infolded topological structure like a matroid associated with the
problematic that is glossed by an idea according to Deleuze. Beauty is an example of such a
problematic. Beauty is seen as the way of accessing the nonduals of Being which are order, right,
good, fate, source and root. We know Beauty as the nature of Art or Aesthetic Experience. And we
know from other studies of Adorno that Art covers the entire Divided Line not just one phase of it.
But we can see that normally Beauty in its most superficial level is related to orderliness. But many
times, there is beyond the Law and Order the spirit of the Law, i.e. a kind of asymmetrical order that
takes precedence over pure order which we call Right. Right is orthogonal to the True. Both the
Nonduals of Being and the Aspects of Being are related to the Philosophical Principles of C.S. Peirce
and B. Fuller that are referred to as Firsts (isolata), Seconds (relata), Thirds (continua) and Fourths
(synergies). In general Order as a First is related to Identity (as organization), Right as a Second is
related to Truth (as orthogonality that produces the Matroid), Good as a Third is related to Presence
(ousia), and Fate as a Fourth is related to Reality (Ananke or necessity). But this means that there
are two nonduals of Being that go beyond the limit of Nous that is supra-rational. And it is the nature
of the sources to be infolded with implicate order and tacit knowledge, i.e. embodying the infolded
gist of the enfolding situation. It is these sources that appear as the grounding of the ideal forms of
Plato.

We know from George Chailos30 that Platos metaphysics has the form of a Projective Geometry and
that the ideal form is finite rather than infinite. The Ideal form as copies and the copies relate to the
ideal form via ousia and participation. The essence is what the copies share that relate them to each
other and back to the ideal form that is the perspectival limit of the projective geometry that includes

28 Bohm, David. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge, 2013. Goergen, Brust R. P, and Valerie Reyna. A
Fuzzy-Trace Theory Approach to Health and Medical Decision-Making. Ph. D. Cornell University, 2015.
29 Polanyi, Michael, and Amartya K. Sen. The Tacit Dimension. Chicago, Ill: The University of Chicago Press, 2013.
30 https://unic.academia.edu/GeorgeChailos
8
the copies. The Simulacrum is what breaks the rules of the essence that relates the copies to each
other and is the exception that proves the rule like Socrates in relation to the Sophists (we cannot tell
them apart ultimately). In this way we understand essences through the form of the projective
geometry. But there is an opposite of the projective geometry which is the matroid that gives the
form of all possible geometries that represents the infolded gist of the source that underlies the ideal
form having implicate order and tacit knowledge.
This is actually a relief because I was quite worried about the nature of the Essence taking us into
Projective Geometry as a model for internal relations as seen in Hegel, but which was outlawed by
Russell from the precincts of Analytical Philosophy. I did not realize that there was an alternative to
the model of the Essence which was the nature of the source form behind the ideal form of Plato
rooted in non-representable intelligibles known through wisdom which is itself its own virtue. I had
only recently had the idea that it was gists that we remembered rather than concepts when we
studied the ideas of the philosophers. But I had not placed the gists ontologically until the idea was
breached that subsistence was another way of Being mentioned by Heidegger. Then the fact that
Sophia was a kind of existence rather than a kind of Being began to make more sense and we could
see that the platonic realm of source forms which was rooted in problematics could be seen as the
basis for the infolded semantic gists as being different from both concepts and ideas. Concepts are
like signs and Ideas like Symbols. But there is also the traces that are part of what Heidegger calls
the RiftDesign31 (Riss32) and which Derrida talks about in terms of Traits33 at the level of Hyper Being
(Differance). There are also the propensities, tendencies, dispositions, etc. that appear in relation to
sense on the surface of Wild Being. And there must be something like the grit, or singularity that is
related to Ultra Being as the basis of what in the Cratylus is called True Names. But all of these are
ontological kinds of Being for thoughts. The thought itself must be something like a gist, i.e. an
existential. It is something that ties the various existentials of dasein together. There is befindlichkeit
related to the past as throwness. There is verstehen related to the future as projection. There is rede
related to the coNow as being-with (mitsein), along side. There is verfallen which is related to the
present which is the combination of the anti-existentials (confoundedness [ambiguity], curiosity, and
idle talk). But how do these come together? We are given the language by which we think, it is
instilled in us, and we think with the words given to us by others. We are given the situation in which
we are enfolded that we express in our thought through its infolding. We are given the understanding
we take from the gist of the thought we are thinking. Heidegger tells us that thought is ultimately
thanking because the thought arises of itself and is given to us for which we are thankful. We are
given the thought in the present as an ousia the presence of the good and the good of the present.
Just like the word which is ordered, right, good, fated, sourced and rooted, so to the thought which is
a gist. Thoughts are ordered by language and the argument as well as our faculty of judgement. But

31 Heidegger, Martin. "The Origin of the Work of Art." The Art of Art History. (1998): 413-426. Heideggers Rift: The
Epistemological Significance of Drawing. Tom McGuirk. Studies in Material Thinking, http://www.materialthinking.org
Vol. 4 (September 2010), ISSN 1177-6234, AUT University
https://www.materialthinking.org/sites/default/files/papers/TomMcGuirk.pdf
32 Williams, Duane. Language and Being: Heidegger's Linguistics . London : Bloomsbury Academic, 2017. p. 109
33 The Retrait of Metaphor. Jacques Derrida. U. Minneapolis 1978. In Enclitic, Volume II, Number 2, Fall 1978 at pp. 5-33.
Whole issue is 8vo., 109pp., White Mythology: Metaphor in the Text of Philosophy Jacques Derrida and F. C. T. Moore
New Literary History Vol. 6, No. 1, On Metaphor (Autumn, 1974), pp. 5-74
9
there is always the spirit of the laws that goes beyond the laws proper, and there is always the spirit
of thought that goes beyond what ought to be thought into speculative regions. There is always the
good of thought that recognizes the intrinsic variety of nature such that no structure can ever
describe it totally as Stafford Beer proclaims as the basis for his Viable System Model. There is always
the fated thought that is necessitated as we dree our wyrd. But ultimately the thought is a gist, is a
semantical infolding like the semen that is the basis of generation of new concepts and ideas that we
find in the sources. That is what as a matroid gives rise to the different point topologies and
geometries of thought. And finally, there is the root of thought in which all the sources find their
coherence. The word is an outward ecstatic expression of the nonduals of Being while the thought is
an inward infolded injected impression of them. Thus, the perfect diacritically of the Projective
Geometry as an expression of internal relations34 has to be balanced with the production of internal
difference 35 as Deleuze says related to the matroid which is the basis of the unfolding of point
topologies and geometries. Thus, there is a big difference between the internal difference that
Deleuze advocates and the internal relations discussed by Hegel which were forgotten by Russell in
his attempt to completely eclipse Bradley who T.S. Eliot36 took as the epitome of his philosophical
orientation within his poetic life as he developed the ideas of the historical unconscious37 as opposed
to the collective unconscious of Jung or the personal unconscious of Freud.
And of course, this gist that is infolded leads us to our attempt to understand Emergent Time.
Emergent Time is the idea that there are at least four orthogonal timelines that intersect in our
experience. We take as the model of these the Four Zoas of Blake38. This idea was suggested by John
Dunne and was taken up by several authors like Tolkien, but more importantly Eliot in his Four
Quartets. Internal difference is ultimately between the different timelines that intersect in experience
which have become prominent in the Heterochronic era. Each different timeline has its own gist and
thus trains of thought skip between the different internal time continuities on a moment by moment
basis. Bergson projects that there is one internal time continuity, but does not suspect that there are
multiple such timelines or that they are orthogonal to each other maintaining their structure as a
matroid in their independence.

We need to be clear about the difference between Existence and Being. They should not be
conflated and the kinds of Being are not just subscripts for the Existential operator (Bx). Being is
not a universal. Being is Indo-European specific and is in fact fragmented being constructed out
of various roots of Being in prehistoric times. Being is striated with different kinds of Being while
Existence is for the most part unstriated and unified. The unity of Existence is contrasted with the
Totality of the Universal. These two logical operators are shown from a Category Theory 39

34 Harris, Errol E. Formal, Transcendental and Dialectical Thinking: Logic and Reality . New York: State University of New
York, 1987.
35 Deleuze, Gilles. Difference and Repetition. London : Bloomsbury, 2014.
36 Eliot, T S. Experience and the Objects of Knowledge in the Philosophy of F.H. Bradley. Ph. D. Harvard University, 1916.
37 Skaff, William. The Philosophy of T. S. Eliot: From Skepticism to a Surrealist Poetic, 1909-1927. Philadelphia, PA. :
University of Pennsylvania Press,, 2016.
38 Blake, William. The Four Zoas. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Pub, 2004.
39 Leinster, Tom. Basic Category Theory. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press,, 2014.
10
perspective to be Adjoints. We call existentials the fragments out of which Being is constructed.
Many languages have Existenitals of various types. For instance, in Sumerians 40 there is the Me
(i.men) which is a copula. Me also appears as noun to be tattvas41 that are the basis of culture stolen

by Innana. The Egyptians 42 had three existentials ( , wnn exist; ,

pr evolve, happen, occur; , iw come, return). Not all languages even have
copulas so even the existence of the existential copula operator is not universal. Most languages
have existentials of different kinds but they do not combine to produce Being which is a super-
synthesis of existentials as in Indo-European languages. We must take into account unconscious
history. Aristotles Being (On) was recognized by the Arab commentators to be more than Wajud
(Existence in Arabic). Thus, they coined a technical term Kun for the overflow of Being beyond
Existence. Then when translating back into Latin they invented the word existence (standing
beyond) to stand in for wajud in the translations. Thus, the term existence came into European
languages. Existence is an independent concept of wajud as an existential in Arabic. But it was
related to Ontos when the Arabs translated the Greek term for Being, and it was always recognized
that there was an excess of Ontos over Wajud signified by Kun (Make). The existence operator ()
was added to logical notation by C.S. Peirce 43 . Whether something exists is a simple yes/no
question (found or not-found?). Being has many different senses, kinds, ways and modalities. But
the original term wajud means to find, and also relates to ecstasy as the term existence means
today. Heidegger uses the term existence for the dynamic nature of Being. It takes off from the
use of the term to imply ecstasy meaning the projection of Being is an standing out like a figure
on a gestalt background . But it is not really a true existential meaning in the sense of Wajud.
Rather it gives a meaning to existence in the dynamic of Being as a projection. And this projection
is an illusion. It results in an illusory continuity within Process Being like the drive to Infinity that
approaches the asymptote of Pure Being. Notice that the Wajud within the Ontos which is
completed by Kun means merely what is found to have standing while the Kun means the
overflow that produces illusion what Meinong calls Extra-Being 44 which Deleuze refers to in
Logic of Sense 45 . We need to clearly distinguish the Being of the Indo-Europeans from the
existentials of other languages that never achieve the super-synthesis of Being. And we posit that
this super-synthesis built up from fragments of the roots of Being and Having in Indo-European
languages is the basis for their technological advantage over time. Being allows very different
things to have a substratum of connection to each other we see in Metaphors. This substance of

40 Edzard, Dietz O. Sumerian Grammar. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011.

41 Tamil concept meaning little mechanism of existence. See https://sites.google.com/site/sumeriantamil/home Dr
K.Loganathan work connecting Sumerian with Sri Lankan Tamils
42 Gardiner, A H. Egyptian Grammar. Oxford, 1969.

43 Houser, Nathan, Don D. Roberts, and Evra J. Van. Studies in the Logic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1997.
44 Perszyk, Kenneth J. Nonexistent Objects: Meinong and Contemporary Philosophy . Dordrecht: Springer, 2010.
45 Deleuze, Gilles. Logic of Sense. Place of publication not identified: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015.
11
Being can underlie transformations that are radically different from each other. And we see this at
work in the fact that whenever the Europeans discover something they add that discovery to other
discoveries, something the Chinese did not do in their history. This is the fundamental difference
that the Indo-Europeans turned to their advantage. And one of the first signs of that was the
domestication of the horse, which allowed them to invade many other cultural areas and spread far
and wide in prehistoric times. This was the first colonial period of the Indo-Europeans based on
superior power. This was repeated later when Europe colonized the world by ships after the
Ottomans cut off their access to trade from China. In both cases it was superior technology that
won the Indo-Europeans dominance over other cultures and their worlds across the globe. Thus,
we can say that ontology matters. This anomaly of Being as a linguistic phenomenon in among the
Indo-Europeans gave them an edge in the production of technology which gave them an edge in
military and economic conquest which lead to 60 percent of the population of the earth speaking
an Indo-European language today. Being and Existence are concepts with a history that needs to
be kept in mind. There are many different existentials in various languages, but Existence is Wajud
and Being is Ontos, and it is from the interaction of the Arabs with Greek thought that we came to
have the term existence in our language that was dormant until existentialism needed a term
different from Being to exploit and so Jaspers used the term Existence which was similar to a term
that Kierkegaard used (Tilvrelse). Heidegger decided to follow this trend despite criticizing it
previously when he wrote Being and Time. Jaspers 46 was able to connect Kierkegaard and
Nietzsche under this banner to which Kauffman added Dostoevsky 47 . It provided a needed
alternative to the well-worn vocabulary of Being and thus a new opportunity to reassess the
structure of Ontology by contrasting it with Existentialism. But this did not lead back to an era
prior to the advent of Being. Rather we must separate these Existentalist uses of the term Existenz
from more archaic forms of Existentality like Wajud, in which the language has no Being, as is
true with all the other languages that impinge on the Indo-European uses of Being that we see in
Ancient Sumeria, Ancient Egypt, and among the Semites with Arabic and Hebrew. These archaic
existentials prior or outside Being can be seen in Egypt for instance as coming in a set of three and
can be seen as the crossing lines in the Divided Line. It turns out that there are also three similar
types of existential among the Sumerians48 which had Me but also Gal1 and Gal2. Thus, there is a
basis for thinking that the crossing lines of the Divided Lines could harken back to these threefold
existentials. And we consider these crossing lines of the Divided Line to relate to nonduals of
Emptiness, Manifestation and Void. Striated Emptiness and unstriated Void are two interpretations
of existence that are almost equivalent. But these might be conjuncted into something positive
such as Manifestation that is utterly nondual. And beyond Manifestation there may be even deeper
nondual standings beyond Manifestation (Sifat, Attribures of God) which we call the Amanifest
(Dhat, Essence of God) which appear in the structure of the Barzak (interspace and barrier between
opposites).

46 Jaspers, Karl. Reason and Existenz: Five Lectures. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1997.
47 Kaufmann, Walter. Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre. Pickle Partners Publishing, 2016.
48 http://www.anelanguages.com/SumerianGrammarFoxvog.pdf
12
Another point that should be made is that there are ways, modes, kinds, senses and other terms for
the differentiation of Being. These all mean different things. The kinds of Being are seen as the
meta-levels which are Pure, Process, Hyper, Wild, and Ultra Being. This is completely different
from the Anglo-Saxon roots of Being which are *Es/*Er//*Bheu//*Wes/*Wer. It is the roots of
Being that shows how Being is fragmented within Anglo-Saxon or Old English. Psychological
modalities relate to being-in-the-world which is seen in terms of pointing, grasping, bearing,
encompassing and singularity. And this is different still from the modulations of being-in-the-
world which are present-at-hand (frozen), ready-to-hand (dynamic), in-hand (expansion), out-of-
hands (contraction) and no hands (fusion). Senses of Being are very different still and have to do
with what Frege49 discusses which are that concepts are undefinables and their meaning keeps
slipping away such that a minor change in terminology can have radically different senses. Ways
of Being are also very different having to do with different accommodations and affordances in
our relations to the world. These differentiations are extremely complex and very different from
each other. For instance, there is Goodmans Ways of Worldmaking50 which are very interesting
and unlike the other usages. And of course, these terms for the differentiations seem to be used at
random by various authors and also perhaps used unthinkingly by myself without understanding
the full ramifications of a given usage. For instance, I have always been uneasy about calling the
meta-levels of Being kinds of Being. But it was convenient in order to get across the idea that
we are talking about an essential difference between the various kinds of Being. But of course,
kind does not mean here what it means referring to things. And this usage could probably not be
defended. Meta-levels of Being is a more precise term because it is connected to the theory of
Higher Logical Types of Russell. Also, I have used the term standing which is more satisfactory
but that includes not just the meta-levels of Being from Pure to Ultra but also Existence,
Manifestation and the Amanifest standings that are outside of Being and related to nonduality. I
dont intend to try to sort these terminological distinctions out and systematize them. I have mostly
followed pre-established usages of others. Over systematization can sap the vitality from our
rhetoric. These various distinctions may always remain unsystematic and haphazard and this is not
necessarily a bad thing. After all we are saying that Being is fragmented, but not only is it in pieces
but it has different types of pieces that do not necessarily all fit together neatly.
We have attempted to take what we were given by Kris McDaniel in his Ways of Being and use
it to further our own theory of the Fragmentation of Being. He has had some good insights that
allowed us to further our own theory based on those gifts he has given to us by taking this
possibility for understanding Being as fragmented seriously.

49 Frege, Gottlob, P T. Geach, and Max Black. Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1977.
50 Goodman, Nelson. "Ways of Worldmaking." Leonardo. 14.4 (1981): 351.
13
14