An ontology is an account of being, of reality. An ontology, in short, determines what is and is not real. For example, a materialist ontology assumes that matter is fundamentally real, while things like consciousness do not have any reality of their own. Consciousness is a mere function of matter (at best) or delusion (at worst). A spiritual ontology, on the other hand, might take the opposite view: consciousness is fundamentally real, while things like matter do not have any reality of their own. Matter is a mere function of consciousness (at best) or delusion (at worst).
How can we integrate such contradictory accounts of reality? This depends, in part, on what we mean by “integrate”. To include both accounts as complementary perspectives in some meta-system is a partial integration at best, and is not so difficult. A genuine integration, though, must go further than mere collection and correlation. It must transcend these apparent contradictions and divisions in a deeper vision of wholeness. The task of true integration is not putting the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle back together. It is attaining that seemless vision of the original landscape, before the photograph was taken and cut into pieces.
Any ontology that posits “things” that exist has an implicit metaphysics. Now, in Western philosophy there has been a well known critique of metaphysical realities. But this critique, if applied consistently, applies just as equally to physical realities as to metaphysical realities. Thus, a “post-metaphysical” understanding must also be equally “post-physical”. The sword of criticism cuts both ways. In other words, the physical world is no less speculative than any metaphysical world. This materialist bias can be exposed by sufficiently profound critical insight.
At a more profound level, the very notion of a perspective or view of reality presupposes a structure or filter of some kind, something that passes through this filter, and something that sees the result of that filtering. Insofar as we take this perspectival view as given, we have adopted a “perspectival metaphysics” that is no less a metaphysics than materialism, idealism, or any other metaphysical stance. There is no metaphysics that escapes critical insight. There is no place to stand, no ground beneath our feet.
The deepest root of all ontologies, paradoxically, is no ontology at all. To even talk of an ontology presupposes an ontology. But prior to these accounts of reality is reality before any account of it. The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao. Here is revealed the ineffable, trans-ontological reality that, by nature, integrates all accounts of itself because these accounts are itself.
True Nature 
Glisten
15 May 2009
Very interesting and true what you say here. However, having agreed with what you say, I feel there is a place and a need for the development of a coherent ontology of consciousness which has the potential to synthesise the myriad versions of approach to the indefinable Truth.
Given that the semantic web has IMHO the potential to manifest as the “global neural foundation for a global mind” I feel it would be greatly enhanced in its capacity for understanding the nature of the situation in which it seems it finds itself if it were to be informed by such a comprehensive synthesis of current existent understandings of same.
I have studied a number of your essays and respect your insight, I realise that I am responding to a relatively ‘old’ post here but I would be interested in any feedback you may have for this idea.
integralscience
16 May 2009
There is indeed room for many potential integrations and syntheses, theories and models. There is a deeper integration, though, that goes beyond conceptual structures and ontological models. It involves a recognition of the way in which thought and structure itself emerges out of a deeper reality, putting all such ideas in a trans-conceptual context of true integration.
Glisten
16 May 2009
Could you describe to me in simple terms how it is that you see:
…”the way in which thought and structure itself emerges out of a deeper reality”?
This is an experiential insight which I am familiar with from my own point of perception and I am interested to investigate this from multiple angles.
integralscience
16 May 2009
A simple experiential instance where this can be seen is in the first moments of waking up in the morning, before the mind has yet oriented itself in time and space, before there is even a sense of personal identity. There is a bare sense of pure awareness, empty and open. Thoughts can then be seen as they emerge out of this, constructing a sense of identity, time, place, etc.
Glisten
16 May 2009
OK, from an individual point of perception we seem to have the same understanding. Would you say that the nature of this personal experience is analogous to the the process by which the universe comes into ‘being’?
integralscience
16 May 2009
There is no “individual point of perception” or “personal” experience prior to the emergence of the sense of identity, time, and space. There is no analogy here. That experience *is* the experience of the universe coming into being. Only in retrospect is the experience (mis)interpreted as belonging to an individual person.
Glisten
16 May 2009
Putting aside all notions of individuality, how (if at all) can the ‘process’ of universal manifestation be described?
…the way in which thought and structure itself emerges out of a deeper reality…
What can be said about the ‘deeper reality’?
I realise that it is our ‘falsely-imagined’ selves that are trying to share ideas about that in which they seemingly occur, however it is the case that we seek to understand the nature of the situation in which it seems we find ourselves!
integralscience
16 May 2009
Some intimations of the process of manifestation can be found here: http://www.holosforum.org/v2n2/mcfarlane.html
Glisten
17 May 2009
Very interesting, thank you for sharing such profound wisdom 🙂