One commenter (Kim) said that he/she has difficulties to understand the system (of biological classification) I advocate because of the very abstract manner in which I express myself. I answered that I advocate an orthogonal system of classification, like the Linnean system, because such a system avoids the internal contradiction of classification that is called Russell’s paradox. Whether this system tries to distinguish homologies and analogies or not is, however, a matter for negotiation between the parties concerned.
In this post, I would like to explain why I express myself in “this very abstract manner”. The reason is that the problem with our conceptualization of reality is that both our conceptualization and reality is fundamentally paradoxically contradictory. Our conceptualization is fundamentally paradoxically contradictory by ending in Russell’s paradox, and reality is fundamentally paradoxically contradictory by fundamentally not being pattern but process. These facts mean that a consistent discussion about reality has to be expressed in “a very abstract manner”. The only alternative is to oversimplify this complicated matter into that these two paradoxes are one and the same paradox, and that this paradox is real (as cladistics and particle physics do in the form of “the tree of life” and “Higgs particle”, respectively), ie, to turn consistent nominalism into inconsistent realism. This alternative does not, however, solve the problem, but just leads into an “indefinite search” (as Charles Darwin expressed it) for this thing (ie, paradox). The reason that I have to express myself in “this very abstract manner” is thus that I have to do it to be consistent. There simply isn’t any other “manner” to express myself to be consistent. (This is also the reason why cladists and particle physicists can’t question what I say.)
So, do this situation mean that we can’t understand reality at all? Well, the answer to this question depends on what we mean with “understand”. The situation means that process (ie, how reality behaves) is ambiguous in relation to our conceptualization of it, that is, that every event can be described in at least two different but just as correct ways, which is an ambiguity, whereas pattern is paradoxically contradictory in relation to our conceptualization of it, that is, that infinity is described by finiteness (or that uncountable infinity is described by countable infinity). which is a contradiction. This, in turn, means that we can understand process, ie, produce consistent descriptions of process, but that we can’t understand pattern, ie, can’t produce consistent descriptions of pattern. We can thus understand how reality behaves, but not what it is.
The problem with “realists” (like cladists and particle physicists) assertion that they indeed can produce consistent descriptions of pattern is that this approach is one and the same thing as the approach called “race biology”. If they are right, then race biology is also right. This is the reason why I run this blog. I’m just trying to convey the message that realists (like cladists and particle physicists) are fundamentally wrong, and unfortunately I have to do it by expressing myself in a “very abstract manner”. The only alternative is to be inconsistent as realists like cladists and particle physicists are. The only place I can join with realists (like cladists and particle physicists) is that I can promise that they will never find what they search, because a contradiction between two paradoxical contradictions can’t be consistently described as one class.