3. The nature of Ontology and Science
Study of ontology, has two important facets, namely psychology and phenomenology.
Psychological aspect of this story is an account of the world, which is subjectively
relative (= penumbra). There also exists a world, as we have mentioned earlier, which is
objectively relative - the world of phenomena (= umbra). This objectively relative world
is being studied by the natural sciences. In science, we deal with the representation of the
natural phenomena, obviously, in a higher order level, with a consideration that it exists
irrespective of our subjective orientations; but in reality, the study of a natural
phenomenon is relative to a subjective reference.
So, both kinds of relativisms, namely subjective and objective, are emerging
properties of the human brain (Chomsky 2002). We know now, epistemological concern,
as an symbol manipulation mechanism, is not enough to explore the enigma of the human
mind, but a metaphysical anxiety about the existence may also be proved as a valid way
to understand the nature of a self-evident / self-consistent system; since they embed each
other. There is neither any episteme, devoid of metaphysics, nor any metaphysics, having
no epistemological significance.
Once we agree with the claim that abstract concepts are the emerging properties
of the human brain, it becomes the sole concern for the entire movement to address the
embodiment hypothesis, which argues in support of the embodiment of knowledge, and
its evolutionary aspect. Knowledge is not something which is dislocated; rather it is
embodied within the socio-physiological world. To decipher this hidden chemistry of the
embodied knowledge, study of language, no doubt, plays a crucial role, since as a social
fact it is contingent to cultural evolution, and as a physical phenomenon, being
necessitated by the biological evolution.
True, that language is a way to look into the mind, but not the only one. The ever
emerging fields of science should also be considered among the other important avenues
to mind. Science is a way to structure the taxonomic information of the world, which is
objectively relative. If so, then isn’t it tough to demarcate ontology and science, as two
distinct domains? If our understanding of meaning of a certain concept is nothing but a
matter of inferential licensing, then what is wrong in the blurring of the distinction
between the scientific knowledge and the common sense metaphysics? These are the
questions, what one has to face while entering into the new era of cognitive science.
Like all other categories, of the natural language, most of the categories of the
science are mental in nature. Categorization as a process of cognition ascribes the
properties to the so-called external world. If so, then the scientific reasoning also, like our
natural language reasoning, is an emerging phenomenon of our body, because of being
constrained by our sensori-motor system. Therefore, the Cartesian notion of body, now
becomes an object of our rational enquiry - body is not something, from where the mind
is dislocated or displaced; rather, the body along with the phenomenological
considerations of different degrees, constitute the essential self, of the twenty first
century.4
Finally, there is no such way to steal our discussion away from the importance of
the social environment. We are aware of its importance, but to be precise, blurring of the
distinction between social and individual will remain deferred, for some other occasion.