Beings’ Evolution or Progress
Beings’ Evolution or Progress: From Parmenides to Instancology
The philosophical trajectory of Being in the Western tradition has taken many forms—from static identity to dialectical process, from presence to disclosure. Yet all prior stages share one underlying limitation: the absence of ontological stratification. Instancology, as a new metaphysical paradigm, introduces a four-layered ontology—Relative Relative (RR), Absolute Relative (AR), Relatively Absolute (RA), and Absolute Absolute (AA)—which not only redefines Being but also reframes historical ontologies as either one-sided or confused mixes of these layers. This essay reinterprets four pivotal thinkers—Parmenides, Hegel, Heidegger, and Instancology itself—by placing their conceptions of Being into these layered categories.
---
1. Parmenides: AA Misconceived as Static RA
Parmenides’ radical claim that “Being is and non-Being is not” attempts to grasp a reality that is indivisible, timeless, and necessary. This aligns superficially with the Absolute Absolute (AA) layer in Instancology, which designates the unspeakable background of all reality. However, Parmenides represents this AA-like Being within rational thought, treating it as knowable via logos.
Thus, Parmenides inadvertently collapses AA into what Instancology would classify as Relatively Absolute (RA)—the layer of logic, laws, and necessary structures—mistaking a beyond-language source for a graspable rational truth. His formulation bypasses AR and RR entirely, rendering the natural and representational dimensions illusory. This makes his ontology both transcendent and amputated: it reaches upward without accommodating the descending instancing into time, space, and meaning.
Instancological critique: Parmenides intuits the AA but violates its nature by capturing it within rational thought, thus confusing AA with RA. He remains unaware of the need for a stratified descent into AR (natural beings) and RR (human symbols).
---
2. Hegel: RA Expanded Dialectically but Mixed with RR
Hegel’s system begins with pure Being and Nothing, resolving into Becoming. His dialectical logic—identity through contradiction—constructs a dynamic, self-unfolding totality. This totalizing logic aligns well with RA, the layer in Instancology where laws, logic, and mathematical truths reside.
However, Hegel does not stop at RA. He incorporates historical development (Spirit), language, culture, and even politics—all RR-level phenomena—into his ontological system, treating them as necessary moments of Absolute Spirit. He also integrates natural reality as a stage in the dialectic, thus covering the AR domain.
Instancological critique: Hegel constructs a grand synthesis that mixes RA, AR, and RR without recognizing their distinct ontological statuses. The laws of dialectics (RA) are made continuous with human history and representation (RR), and with nature (AR), thereby flattening the stratification. This fusion leads to metaphysical overreach, where symbols (e.g., history, language) are treated as if they emerge from the same level as logic or necessity. He correctly locates Being in movement but misattributes uniformity across layers.
---
3. Heidegger: AR Focused with Glimpses of RA and AA, Misread through RR
Heidegger breaks from representational metaphysics by reintroducing the question of Being itself. His focus on Dasein—the being that questions Being—marks a profound return to the existential and temporal nature of existence. His Being is not an object or concept but a disclosive event unfolding in time and care.
This locates Heidegger’s thinking primarily in the Absolute Relative (AR) layer, where natural (non-symbolic) beings appear in space-time and manifest in unique, non-repeatable ways. He also gestures toward RA (truth, unconcealment) and even AA (the hiddenness of Being), but does so without formal separation.
However, Heidegger’s language often relies on metaphor, poetic expression, and symbol-heavy constructs (e.g., “The Clearing,” “The Event”), which fall under RR. Thus, he uses RR tools to discuss AR and AA matters, creating ambiguity and interpretive instability.
Instancological critique: Heidegger powerfully restores the AR layer but fails to cleanly separate it from RR (language) or to clarify its relation to RA (law). He senses AA’s hiddenness but cannot articulate its nature without slipping into language or mysticism. This blurs the ontological clarity Instancology demands.
---
4. Instancology: Layered Ontology and Complete Stratification of Being
Instancology presents a four-layered ontology that resolves the historical confusions outlined above:
RR (Relative Relative): Symbolic, human-created meanings—language, logic systems, cultural norms.
AR (Absolute Relative): Natural, irreducible instances in time-space—organic life, consciousness, the physical world.
RA (Relatively Absolute): Law-like, logical structures—mathematics, causality, truth, necessary relations.
AA (Absolute Absolute): The unspeakable, source layer—pure background, beyond thought or representation.
Each being is treated as an instance arising from AA, expressed through RA, embodied in AR, and possibly represented in RR. For example, a natural event (earthquake) is AR; its underlying tectonic laws are RA; a media report of it is RR; and the very fact that such an event instantiates existence points to AA.
Instancological completion: Unlike prior thinkers, Instancology maintains ontological purity by not mixing layers. It restores stratification as the key to clarity: truth does not reside in symbols (RR), laws are not reducible to events (AR), and AA cannot be represented or spoken. Each thinker before failed due to layer conflation—treating thought as nature, symbols as laws, or being as presence. Instancology repositions Being as instanced wholes, always appearing within a specific layer-context.
---
Conclusion: Ontological Clarity through Layered Stratification
From Parmenides’ static unity to Hegel’s logical movement, from Heidegger’s existential disclosure to Instancology’s stratified instancing, the Western path of Being has unfolded as both ascent and misstep. What was once treated as undivided or continuous is now shown, through Instancology, to consist of necessary layers.
Only by respecting the ontological boundaries between AA, RA, AR, and RR can philosophy recover clarity. Instancology does not merely add a new theory to the old; it completes the history of Being by restoring its layered truth—each instance a revelation, but only within its proper ontological home.