“The works of the great poets have never yet been read by mankind, for only great poets can read them. They have only been read as the multitude read the stars, at most astrologically, not astronomically. Most people have only learned to read to serve a paltry convenience, as they have learned to cipher in order to keep accounts and not be cheated in trade, but of reading, as a noble intellectual exercise, they know little or nothing at all.”

Henry David Thoreau, Walden

Ever since I published my first article explaining how I see the world, I was–first of all–surprised that there were enthusiasm for it, much more enthusiasm for it than I had previously anticipated, considering the primarily sexual nature of our contributors, myself included; but, secondly, there seems to be a lot of confusion about it as well.  

I would blame myself for it, because I didn’t really fully develop my Idea, and I did not fully explain what I thought, and I never prepared most of my readers for what I was going to write. 

In order to understand my metaphysics, for those who are interested, I would recommend as prerequisite readings John M. Lee’s Introduction to Smooth Manifold, and Walter Benjamin’s Ursprung des deutschen Trauerspiels.

https://math.mit.edu/~hrm/palestine/lee-smooth-manifolds.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_German_Tragic_Drama

In regards to the first book, which is a graduate level math course that I took, it was one of my favorite classes. In regards to the second book, the most relevant part of Benjamin’s book to my ideas would be his Epistemo-Critical Prologue. 

I do not claim to be original, because my metaphysics formulated so far are, as Benjamin would say, a “synergy of ideas” presented in those two books. But it does not mean that those are not my ideas. There are no unique ideas in this world, and certainly there is no thought in this world that has not been thought of already, since all thoughts and language are produced by mere illusions of our grammar. (Wittgenstein, p99) 

I have merely written my own language, and this is my language and hence it is my idea, the germination of my thought.

It is certainly very true that what I have written is neither rigorous (in the academic sense) nor scientific, and neither have I ever attempted to be so pedantic and to lecture you on the finesse of monads or the fine difference between German idealism and American pragmatism. To do so would be contrary to the nature and the will of my own spirit. I merely write for pleasure. And writing for me is my prayer, to let my lords have my voice heard, expressing my thought, and this website is a platform for those ideas of mine, to reach my lords. And you, who are reading this article, is my lord.

My metaphysics is merely a description of the world inside my mind and it in no way interferes with the actual inner workings of the world outside of my mind, which is in all probabilities governed by Greater Minds: your Einstein, your Aristotle, your Emmanul Kant, etc. 

I leave no imprint upon the world and my philosophy leaves everything as is.


So without further ado, let me clarify and elaborate a little bit more on my metaphysics concerning the world of ideas.

My metaphysics stems from the definitions of topological manifolds and smooth manifolds. You can find the definitions on wikipedia or in Lee’s textbook so I’m not going to reproduce them here. The physical world is comprehended through the world of ideas. The world of ideas is defined as the set of all possible mappings from the set of all open subsets in the physical world into arbitrary subsets inside the world of ideas. This is a complete rehash of the definition of smooth manifold, and thus is logically rigorous and well-defined. 

The physical world is my topological manifold, and through the world of ideas, I have given meaning to this world. Inside the world of ideas I have ideas which are akin to my “chart” and my “atlas” and my “coordinates on a smooth manifold”, and I map those ideas into my idea of the physical world, and thus I create the smooth manifold on which we do calculus, which is my world of ideas.

There is a reason why the best ideas all come from math/physics, because all the best minds of this world have gone into those fields. I remember when I took classical electrodynamics, by the end of the semester, half of the class had disappeared. The professor said classical electrodynamics is our first “washer” class in physics. It washes out those people who are not good enough to be majoring in physics. When I took quantum mechanics, on the first day, my professor told us that “This will be the hardest class you will ever take.” And by the end of the semester, more than half of the class had dropped out.

So I’m not going to mince words here.

The smooth manifold that is created is what we call a Category. It’s not a set. It’s a Category, in the mathematical sense of the word and not in the Kantian sense. A Category consists of two things, the objects being the ideas, and the mappings being the connections between the physical world and the world of ideas. Category theory was invented to resolve paradoxes introduced in set theory and they are a great tool to get around any possible gaps in logic. Thus my Idea is a part of this world of ideas, but the world of ideas is also a “subset” of my Idea and there is no contradiction because they are mapped to another and not “subsets” in the set theory meaning of the word.

And inside my Idea, I too have ideals. Those are my pure ideas, ideas which are mapped from an idea onto another idea. Ideals themselves do not have any foundation in the physical world, but the underlying ideas of ideals do. And in addition to ideals, I have my own compound ideas. Those are ideas that are made up of ideals and ideas. For instance, the meaning of life is such a compound idea. Meaning itself is an ideal, but life is an idea. Thus the meaning of life is a compound idea. And when someone attaches a meaning to the meaning of life, she is mapping the compound idea to another idea, which then makes the sentence “the meaning of life is …” into another idea. And thus you can construct many infinite chains of ideas, each one containing a smaller one. And in this world of ideas, there are uncountable many such chains of ideas, descending and ascending like stars and galaxies. And those compound ideas are all ideals. And it’s very easy to see why because all compound ideas do not themselves have mappings inside the physical world and and must always be attached to a previous idea that does, and thus they are ideals. 

Is the world of ideas itself an idea, since one can assume that perhaps we could find an idea large enough to contain the entire world of ideas? Absolutely not! The world of ideas itself cannot be an idea and here is the proof by way of contradiction. Suppose the world of ideas itself is an idea, then it is the largest idea possible and we cannot have any idea outside of this idea, and we cannot possibly imagine anything bigger than this idea, but the world of ideas itself is precisely that which we have imagined to be bigger than this very idea, and which is defined to contain this idea. Thus the world of ideas itself is not an idea. Q.E.D.

And what about our ideals? Can we prove any theorems concerning our ideals? Are chains of ideals finite or infinite? I propose that there are in fact no infinite chains of ideals, and I already have a proof in my mind, but I want to challenge my readers to come up with their own proofs, if you are up to the challenge. 

“The results of philosophy are the uncovering of one or another piece of nonsense and of bumps that the understanding has got by running their heads up against the limit of language,” (Wittgenstein p180)

Our ideas and our language are inevitably entwined, but our language, contrary to popular belief, is not the vehicle of our ideas. Rather, our language is our idea. The idea of whether thoughts without language is possible has been a debate from Leibniz that carried all the way out to Neuroscientists. Of course you can read their books on what they think it’s the case, but in the metaphysics of Jennifer Suzuki, Leibniz is my king. No idea is possible without language, and language itself is an idea, and language is not static and is constantly being invented and reinvented. Without the language of differential geometry, Einstein would not have been able to formulate his ideas of general relativity. Without the language of mathematics, Isaac Newton would have been able to invent physics. Without the language of Boolean algebra, logic itself, and by extension all the computer programming languages that exist today, artificial intelligence would not have been possible. 

Certainly someone would argue that someone can have an idea, but she simply doesn’t have the language to express it. That’s the equivalent of saying that I have the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, but I simply can’t tell you how the proof goes. Without language to express your idea, your idea is nonexistent. Period.

And so I have set out to write my own language.