Rebuttals to Skepticism About Instancology

Rebuttals to Skepticism About Instancology

1. On Grasping the Whole

Objection: "We can never know if we have grasped the Whole. We may feel we have, but there is no place you can stand to be absolutely sure that you have it. You might be missing something. Same for the Truth."

Rebuttal: This objection assumes that certainty must be confirmed from a position outside the Whole, which is a category error. If the Whole is truly the Whole, there is no "outside" position. Instancology solves this by showing that the Whole (AA) is not a set of contents but the ungraspable background that allows all grasping to occur. Once one sees the full stratification of reality—RR, AR, RA, AA—one doesn't grasp AA as content, but sees that all contents presuppose it. The certainty comes not from empirical completeness, but from structural closure. To deny it is to unknowingly affirm it.

2. On the Impossibility of Absolute Truth (Postmodern Objection)

Objection: "The Whole may possibly be grasped, but there is no way of knowing when this has happened. The same is with the Truth. They may be knowable, but, from everything we have seen, over time, it is highly improbable. Deconstructionists will always say: no certainty is ever unshakeable."

Rebuttal: Postmodern skepticism thrives on the assumption that 'truth' is always linguistic, contextual, or contingent. Instancology disagrees. It shows that what postmodernism deconstructs is RR (Relative Relative) — symbolic and conceptual constructs — not RA or AA. The failure to reach truth through language doesn’t mean truth doesn’t exist. It just means the *mode of access* is different. Instancology introduces WuXing (悟性), a non-linguistic, non-logical way of seeing—a paradigm shift, not a proposition. The certainty it offers is not propositional but paradigmatic: you see the structure as a whole, and it cannot be unseen.

3. Response to NYT Editor Rejection

Objection: "We cannot publish a review of this book because (1) it was written in Chinese, and (2) it is not published by a well-known academic publisher."

Rebuttal: These are not philosophical criteria, but institutional biases. Many great philosophical works were born outside English and outside prestige presses. Descartes, Spinoza, and Wittgenstein all faced similar resistance. If the work offers a new way to understand reality—a revolution in ontology, as Instancology does—then its language or publisher should not determine its merit. If philosophy only affirms what is already established, it has betrayed its vocation. A reviewer owes it to truth to engage with content, not credentials.

4. Are the Layers Just Made Up?

Objection: "'Instancology' reveals this how? Are these supposed higher layers available to observation by others, or only by oneself? Why should I not think these are made up by the mind?"

Rebuttal: Instancology does not rely on private mystical experiences. It reveals the four layers of reality—AA, RA, AR, RR—through structural logic, not subjectivity. These layers are not beliefs, but distinctions anyone can verify by examining the differences between law and phenomena, symbol and meaning, being and truth. They're not made up—they're *required* to make sense of reality as we already experience it. This isn’t metaphysical speculation, but metaphysical precision. Interpretations may vary, but the ontological stratification remains stable across perspectives. It’s not about belief—it’s about clarity.