How do the meanings of the modal terms 'Immanent', 'Omniscient', and 'Transcendent'
in the IM compare to their more conventional meanings in the English Language?
Immanent: As existing or remaining within.
As present throughout the universe.
Imminent: As about to occur; impending.
The term immanent as used within the Immanent Metaphysics (IM) takes something
of the meaning of both of the terms 'immanent' and 'imminent' as conventionally defined above.
In that the concepts of relation and interaction are
inherent within all events, there is a strong correspondence to the
conventional meaning of 'immanent'.
To the degree that 'that which is of experience' (itself a
process of interaction) involves an infinitely small duration of
time, or is a reference to that which is in one's immediate
experience in the here and now, the IM use of the term
immanent strongly corresponds to the meaning of 'imminent'.
The term immanent is also used in IM to refer to that which is immediate
and intrinsic in one's own perception or expression.
The immanent reflects a sense of being within a world, as a participant, and of
experiencing it directly in first person terms.
The immanent modality is often used to connote the simplest possible concept of
interaction or of relation between self and a world (i.e., either
a dreaming or 'waking' world/reality).
The idea of the basic "here and now experience" (or expression) between self and reality is
generally regarded as immanent modal, the emphasis being upon
the concepts of 'basic' and of the absolute immediacy of time.
The concept of the immanent often is used to refer to the center
of a continuum, coordinate system, or transformation.
Omniscient: As having total knowledge; knowing everything.
As a referent to the quality of having infinite knowledge.
The redefinition of the term 'omniscient' is consistent with the
original meaning in that one is indeed "all knowing" when perceiving
a domain from a frame of reference that is external to it.
In considering ones relation to a photograph, as an example, one can see the entire
content of the photo at once, and thus has total and complete knowledge of the image.
The term omniscient carries the connotation of a point of view
which includes all of the domain viewed, where the perceiver is not
(a part of/in interaction with) the thing(s) so perceived.
A perception/description of any thing is omniscient modal when
it is defined in terms of structure and when it has an external viewpoint.
The action of description, naming, explanation, etc., are all omniscient activities.
The term omniscient carries the connotation of something that is considered
without time, and has fixed form/ structure.
For example, a photograph is a perception of something in an omniscient manner,
as the content of a photograph is considered unchanging.
The things and events in the photograph are timeless.
Omniscient relations typically have only matter and space (static
Omniscient descriptions begin with
the largest scales and tend towards the unit size (i.e., a movement
from the macroscopic to the microscopic boundaries of the domain).
Omniscient systems are defined externally to themselves.
As to exist above or independently of (material experience
of the universe).
To rise above or across; surpass, exceed.
As designating knowledge that is beyond the limits of
As that which is concerned with the a-priori or intuitive
basis of knowledge.
As asserting a fundamental irrationality or supernatural
element in experience.
As a referent to that which is above and beyond the ordinary
Transcendent (as used in mathematics):
As not capable of being determined by any combination of a
finite number of equations with rational number coefficients.
As not expressible as an integer or quotient of integers.
Each of these definitions of transcendent carries the connotation
of being outside or completely removed from the frame of reference that is one's given world.
In this respect, the IM usage of the
term 'transcendent' keeps the aspect of the original meaning in
referring to any relation mode where the context of the relation is
completely outside of the frame of reference that defines the domain.
These relations are not experiential (that would be immanent) but are
beyond the consideration of the experiential altogether,
not being dependent upon the frames of reference that they connect.
Within the IM, the term transcendent
carries the connotation of situations where a
relation has no time or space components at all, but is based upon
other measures of similarity and difference altogether.
A transcendent relationship is one that has "no position" or no
specific point of reference or context.
For example, a statement that is "true" at all locations is a transcendent statement.
Other examples of "transcendent type" relationships include the relation
between the position of the hardware and the position of the software in the "same" computer.
The structure that exists in a
transcendent relationship is completely "from the inside towards the
outside", or from the microscopic domain boundary towards the "unit
size" (and/or the macroscopic domain boundary) of the domain.
Transcendent systems are defined internally to themselves and have no
The traditional concept of transcendence does not just mean moving into
another 'dimension', but rather to getting outside of a given
frame of reference altogether.
What sort of things have Transcendent relationships?
For an example of something of the nature of the transcendent modality
as used within the IM, consider the relationship between
a typical computer program and some component of the hardware of
Consider that from the perspective of the software, the hardware has no locus, no position.
A programmer does not find physical transistors
in the data and files representing the program logic.
Where the hardware is invisible to the program, and yet supports it "at all points"
the relation to the program to the hardware is effectively transcendent,
as viewed from the perspective of the program code.
Additionally, from the point of view of the hardware, the "location" of
the software is similarly in-specific and invisible.
This concept of having no relative position in time or space,
(i.e., of being another frame of reference altogether),
is characteristic of the transcendent modality.
The fact of having no common relative position is not to say, however,
that the software and the hardware of a computer are completely independent.
The program code affects/determines the connectivity
and state of the hardware, and the hardware implements the software.
A change of state in the hardware can definitely affect the state
of the software (for example, if one were to turn the computer power off).
This relation of two domains, one of software and one of hardware,
is said to be one of conjugation.
Additionally, neither one completely controls the other; there is an interdependence of causality.
The software does not completely
determine the state of the hardware, and the state of the hardware does
not completely define (at the level of description native to the
software) the internal state of the software.
In that both hardware and software descriptions must be used
to characterize the whole system, each has an equal "degree of realness" associated with it.
They are both worlds unto themselves, and the
being of one world does not exclude the internal reality of the other.
All of these aspects of the relationship between software and hardware
are characteristic of the transcendent modality as used within the IM.
How are the Modal terms generally used together?
How would they relate to one another in terms of a common metaphor?
Insofar as the IM is an inquiry into the relationship
between the self and the world, the modalities of the IM
metaphysics refer to the various types of relationship
that selves can be in with respect to their worlds.
As such, the three modalities are essentially 'names' of basic relationship types.
Consider, for a moment, the sorts or types of relationships involved in looking at a photograph.
Imagine, for example, that one had a picture of two people sitting on a beach.
The relationship between the viewer and the photograph, as an object
in the hand, is an immanent one, in the frame of reference of the
The frame of reference of the person holding the photograph is
different than the frame of reference the photo depicts.
For example, a person depicted within a photograph cannot "see" the person viewing the photo.
One cannot see those people
who will later be looking at the photo when the photo is taken.
Insofar as the viewer has a "position" that is external to the
frame of reference depicted within the photograph, the viewer
is in an omniscient modal relationship to the depicted contents of the
Additionally, the structure depicted by the photograph,
i.e. its frame of reference and everything within it,
is defined from the outside only, by the material of the photograph itself.
This structure is completely determined/specified, is fixed and static, and has no vector of time.
These situational attributes typically characterize
the omniscient modality.
The relation between the viewer and the photograph itself is an immanent mode relation.
The relation between the viewer and someone
depicted within the photograph is an omniscient mode relation.
Note however, that the relation between someone within the photograph and
someone else who is also within the photograph is an immanent mode
Imagine that there is another/additional photograph of the same scene,
taken from a different position (i.e., that there were two photographers that day).
For a moment, imagine that there is one photograph
in each hand, and that one can see both of them at once.
The relation of the sameness of someone depicted within the first photograph to someone depicted
within the second photograph would be a transcendent modal relation.
The relations between two photographs are determined by the content
of these photographs only, (i.e., they do not depend on the particular
context of the photographs, where they happen to be, etc).
There is no specific frame of reference defined between the photos,
for it makes no difference how far or near the actual photos may be
(in the frame of reference of the viewer).
As such, there is no structure, specification, or vector of space necessarily "including"
both photographs at all; any such context is purely dynamic.
These situational attributes characterize the transcendent modality.
One could think of the relations between the self and the
photograph (the immanent mode) as being a mixture of the transcendent
and the omniscient.
However, a caution in thinking in this way is that, by Axiom I,
the immanent mode defines both
the omniscient and the transcendent modes relative to the immanent.
One's relation (i.e. perceptual interaction)
to any given photograph has both time and space type vectors.
Such a relation contains elements of both staticism (it remains the same
photo) and dynamism (no photograph lasts forever), and has both
context (one cannot view a photograph in the dark) and content (a
blank photograph is not worth looking at) dependencies.
The structure of the relations is only partially specified and has some
latitude for change, depending on the purposes of the viewer.
If the omniscient was totally fixed structure (as pure stasis), and
the transcendent is total absence of structure (or pure dynamism),
and these were considered as extreme end points of a single continuum
with the immanent in the middle (as the origin), then the origin
would define the end points, and not the other way around (as one
would ordinarily assume).
How are modality correspondences identified?
To effectively identify those concepts which are the modes of an
arbitrarily given domain, it is necessary to establish that
the selected concepts are exactly essential to that domain (i.e.,
to have selected the correct number or quantity of concept), and
that well developed (tested) role correspondences have been
observed for each (i.e., to have selected the correct quality of
Often this is a process of iterative trial and error, where
conceptual aspects of a given domain are abstracted and tested
against the modal templates for a good fit.
To show correctness, each of the abstracted concepts needs to be demonstrated as
being necessary to any possible consideration of the domain, and
that the three concepts together are sufficient for any such
consideration (being careful to have well scoped domains).
Then, the role of each of the concepts with respect to the other two
is considered in detail, particularly as they are used in careful
(complete) descriptions of the process of the domain being considered.
Where both the implicit connotations and strict
lexical formulation of all such descriptive statements remain
correct when substituting instances of terms of equivalent
modality for some other domain, then the modalities of each
of the three domain essential terms is said to be well associated.
Ultimately, it is the Axioms which define and distinguish the
modalities, even while the Axioms are best described in the terms of the modalities.
To consider the (meaning of) Axioms as
being defined/described in terms of (the meaning of) the modalities is the practice of theory.
To consider the
Axioms as defining/describing (the meaning of) the modalities is the theory of practice.
To know and understand the IM requires both the practice of theory and the
theory of practice.
How do you use the Axioms to distinguish the modalities?
Each of the Axioms defines a pattern of relationships (in a given context).
If you can match the roles that each of the modal concepts has with respect
to the other two, in terms of these common patterns, then the correspondences
themselves become fixed.
Axiom III is an assertion that there are three modalities,
or three terms/concepts, which together subsume the essence
of a domain, and which fill (or have) the roles of the
modalities of immanent, omniscient, and transcendent.
Axiom III does not in itself identify which domain essential
concept is associated with which modality, but only that
such associations are always strongly definable.
Axiom I distinguishes the immanent modality from the omniscient and transcendent modalities.
The immanent modality is
that term which (in a context which is both objective and
non-temporal) is used as the necessary basis for the
definition/description of both the omniscient and the
transcendent terms, and/or that which can only be
(completely/accurately) defined/described in terms
of both the omniscient and the transcendent terms.
Axiom I has the effect of naming/identifying the term
with an immanent modal association, even though it does
not identify which of the two remaining terms are to be
associated with the omniscient and transcendent modalities.
Axiom II distinguishes
the omniscient modality from the transcendent modality.
The omniscient modal term is identified by being that term
which in practice (in a context which is both subjective and temporal)
necessarily follows from the being of the term with an
immanent modal association (that term already identified by Axiom I).
The transcendent modal term is identified by being that term
which in practice necessarily precedes the being of the term
with an immanent modal association.
Presuming that the three essential foundation concepts of a
domain have already been resolved and identified into three
named concepts, the modal class of each of the domain predicates
may be identified by a close match to the structure of the usage
(and relations) of that concept with that of the generic modality.
For each modality, the pattern of usage will typically be some
analogue of what follows:.
An immanent modal concept is that concept which, in the
context of theory, has the role of
either defining both of the other two concepts, or which can
only be fully defined by statements in terms of both of the
other two concepts in a theoretical/model context domain
external to the domain so described and modeled.
In the context of practice, the immanent modality will be
that aspect of all instances of the domain fundamental dynamic
which subjectively follows (in time) the occurrence of a transcendental
aspect and which precedes an omniscient aspect.
In the context of metaphysics, the immanent modal concept will be
the one which has a pattern of the structure of its relations which
most closely match that of Axiom II.
An omniscient modal concept is that concept which, in
the context of theory, has the role of referring to that which is
a (known/necessary) static (fixed)
consequent to/of a class of the processes described by, or referred
to by, the immanent modal concept in the action context
of process within a domain.
In the context of practice, the omniscient modality will be that aspect
of all instances of the domain fundamental dynamic which subjectively follows
(in time) the occurrence of an immanent aspect and which precedes a
In the context of metaphysics, the omniscient modal concept will be
the one which has a pattern of the structure of its relations which
most closely match that of Axiom I.
A transcendent modal concept is that concept which, in
the context of theory, has the role of referring to the
(unspecified or incompletely specified) class of implicit
assumptions/process which is/are a necessary precondition(s)
to the class of processes described by, or referred to by,
the immanent modal concept in the action context of process
within a domain.
In the context of practice, the transcendent modality will
be that aspect of all instances of the domain fundamental
dynamic which subjectively follows (in time) the
occurrence of an omniscient aspect and which precedes
an immanent aspect.
In the context of metaphysics, the transcendent modal
concept will be the one which has a pattern of the structure
of its relations which most closely match that of Axiom III.
Is this the only way in which modality correspondences can be identified?.
In many cases, the modal types for domain predicates can (usually) also be identified
with a construction by analogy (type isomorphism).
When a series of common semantic relations are established between the basic predicates of one
domain to the fundamental predicates of other domains (which have known
and well established modal correspondences) the modality correspondences
may be identified by their common implications.
The degree of confidence (the strength associated with the technique of
establishing transitive modal correspondences) is in proportion to the
product of the number, difference, and degree of the domains mutually
More specifically, the degree of confidence in any given allocation of modal
roles to (presumed) domain essential concepts is defined as the integral
of the product of the degree of correctness of both the connotative
and formulaic aspects of domain descriptive statements (in terms
of those essential concepts), across all possible instances of modal
isomorphic substitutions of those essential concepts, and the relative
degree of dissimilarity of the domain which provides these substituting
The total degree of the semantic resolution of the meaning
of the pure modal concepts themselves, (and also the total degree of
confidence in all other developed (domain) modal correspondences),
is considered to be (very strongly) proportional to the total number of
identified correspondences between the identified three domain essential
concepts and the three modalities.