On the problem in conceptualization of reality

The fundamental problem in conceptualization of reality (independently of whether it’s made in terms of (classifying objects into) species and genera, or in terms of (classifying groups of objects into mono-, holo. and paraphyletic groups, and confusing mono- and holophyletic group into) clades) is that every dimension is orthogonal to to all other dimensions, and that each single dimension has several directions (i.e., dimensions), that is, that every dimension is internally orthogonal concerning dimensionality.

 The problem with this fact is that it means that an odd number of dimensions is consistent with an even number of dimensions and that an even number of dimensions is consistent with with an odd number of dimensions, but that an odd number of dimensions is inconsistent with an odd number of dimensions and that an even number of dimensions is inconsistent with an even number of dimensions, because it means that the odd number of dimensions of space (i.e., three) is inconsistent with the odd number of dimensions of time (i.e., one).

This inconsistency means that there is an ambiguity in conceptualization of reality that we can’t get rid of, but which we can only place somewhere. The Linnean system places it in the fundamental level of recognizing that both holo- and paraphyletic groups are monophyletic, whereas cladism places it in its concepts and thus in reasoning itself. It means that the reasoning of a Linneanist consistently will arrive to conclusions that are compatible with their assumptions, whereas the reasoning of a cladist consistently will arrive to conclusions that are incompatible their assumptions. A Linneanist will thus conduct a consistent reasoning but never arrive to an unambiguous classification (other than by contract), whereas a cladist will conduct an inconsistent reasoning and never arrive to an unambiguous classification.

Linneanism (i.e., empirical science) can thus arrive to a classification that is optimal with regard to facts, whereas cladism is doomed to spin around among the different classifications that agree with facts. Cladism’s idea that there is a single classification that agrees with facts more than every other classification do disregards (denies, forgets…or any other synonym) the difference between the concrete (i.e., reality) and the abstract. The problem with this disregard (denial, forgetting…or any other synonym) is that it does not (and cannot) eradicate the difference between reality and the abstract. It would be fine if it could, but it cannot.

Cladism is thus an attempt to eradicate the ambiguity between reality and the abstract leading into a double ambiguity, which it interprets as an unambiguity. It is trying to acknowledge wrong as right aiming to overcome the fact that not wrong does not equal not right. It is applied one-eyeness (that is, lack of split vision) instead of two-eyeness. Or more simply stated, it is applied simplemindedness (and also argumented for as a such). 

Cladism is thus ‘insensible simplification’ advocated by advovating  insensible simplifications in a generic sense. It is not ashamed for insensible simplifications, but, on the contrary, advocates them. It is science in spin towards its own destruction.