I previously, jokingly, wrote The 5 Spatiotemporal Laws and posted it online, mostly for my own amusement with the added bonus of confusing who might come across it. However, the 5th Spatiotemporal Law, I feel, is legitimate. I wrote that, “The 5th spatiotemporal law states that time, ontology, biology and physics are all the same. Deal with it.” I wrote this in such a fashion because I know in the sciences there is a great deal of hostility towards ontology being commingled with their specific professions. And this is natural. Most people in the sciences did not take enough humanities courses to dive into this for a long enough period of time to understand, research, and thoroughly realize the significance of what is being said.
It is actually very simple. I have a very rudimentary argument.
There is no difference between intellectualism and fantasy, perhaps, as far as their component structures. We can say biology exists. This we know for certain. If that is the case, then philosophy and biology are the same and function under the same guiding rules. That is, if philosophy exists. If is it true, then it is the same as biology and intertwined within the organic structures. If philosophy exists, they are all part of the same machinations. This again returns us to what I have stated, previously, that,
Violence is not inevitable. Biolence, which I intend to roughly mean those human, animal, biological motivations towards aggression as nature indicates intellectual potential to overcome in human-trusted mechanical biolence against the opposition of an untrustworthy superficial biolence that can easily be understood as something that can be done away with. As we work towards a more perfect society, we cannot do so without an understanding of violence as a reality to be overcome. Without an understanding of violence, we cannot overcome it.
With an understanding of violence, we can move further into understanding philosophy as biology, and in that path, waive the transient guilt of our present selves, into a motivation higher than our structural setbacks and dependent labor. Within the plight of our struggles to understand our own emotive output we can see the cascading ritual of human ambivalence that ties us to continuously carving so-and-so Loves so-and-so into the same tree, just off campus, generation after generation. When we move beyond the guilt of the present self we will escape the harmony of stranger-ness and into the burial rites of the past of human experiences, what we should then rightly call, the Old Age.
With this in mind, and please, just humor me, what we can say is that any alien civilization just might see an ontological state as relevant and intra-related to the sciences; be that the sciences of their understanding of biology, physics, or space travel. I am reminded of the Captain Vallestus’s as of yet un-named species from the Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: The Scorpius Run comic series. This alien species is an exaggeration of the point I am trying to make. They meld with their ship with their minds and through mental clarity compose a consensus with each other and their ship. If we are in fact thinking of First Contact, it makes sense to think about the ship that brought them to us.
Let us not say that there is a quasi-telepathic link between this First Contact species and their ship, but instead that their ship was created and constructed with an understanding of physics (travel) and biology (survival in space) that incorporates an inter-spatial knowing or always already understanding of knowledge that does actually result from an sociological and educational evolution that deeply involves, for them, what we may call ontology.
Why is this such a radical idea? It seems rather simple that a species so advanced as to make First Contact would indeed possess the mental discipline to tolerate the mental anguish of the invention of space travel as well as survival during space travel. For them, ontology may be the same as the sciences. Now, with that in mind, why would we not seek out that specific interdisciplinary field. Philosophy of Science is already an expanding field. There will no doubt be many more subfields that will branch off, even more than that which exist already, in the years to come. This is a opportunity of explore the science of mental processes that would no doubt be beneficial in contemplating potential First Contact. Now, hold off on your emails. I know Philosophy of Science is not what I am representing here. What I proposing is the potential for subfields to fill in empty spaces of knowing in the most adroit manner.
[Header image: Taken from here]