Experimental ontology on the basis of semasiological experiments

While etymology deals with the origin and meaning of words and their history, including the history of their change in meaning, onomasiology and semasiology investigate the language-internal relationships between words and meanings. Both play an important role within lexicography and are sub-disciplines of general semantics. Onomasiology examines the designation and the change of designation of objects by words depending on different contexts. In contrast, semasiology investigates how words can have different meanings depending on different contexts. As onomasiology deals with word formation and word creation, semasiology explores the possibility of creating new meanings through new assignments of words and contexts. There is thus something magical inherent in semasiology. Words become a kind of incantation to make the world reveal itself.

Simplified relations are often found in management and coaching schemes. However, these usually have the following three properties:

1. High-dimensional relationship relations are reduced to at most two dimensions or folded into at most two-dimensional subspaces.
2. Existing power relations are veiled or at least not questioned.
3. Through oversimplifying hierarchizations, existing hierarchical structures of power are implicitly legitimized.

Known examples: Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Kohlberg's stages of moral development, Loevinger's stages of ego development, Whitehead's social and personal orders, Extended OSI model, ERG theory, Theory U.
Consequently, people lie to each other for the purpose of complexity reduction.

Due to its speculative nature, the scientific usefulness of an experimental ontology is at least uncertain.

With regard to the concept of God, following my experimental ontology, I see three different clearly distinguishable types, each with its own logic. The first type refers to otherworldly concepts about which nothing testable can be said, since it refers to what is unavailable and unattainable. This indeterminability allows for ideas of a personal God as well as a creator God. Any attempts to prove or disprove the existence of such beings necessarily lead to irresolvable contradictions. The second type refers to the God of negative theology "The One", the epitome of the absolute par excellence. The problem of proving God does not arise here, as it is not even possible to formulate the concepts and questions required for this without contradiction. With the third type, it is exactly the opposite. Since it is possible in principle to assert a definition of "divinity", the necessary existence of a divine being can so be proven on this basis, as Gödel has shown. Similarities to pantheistic ideas of an inherent divine substance or a divine principle are unmistakable here. Spinoza's concept of God is generally described as pantheistic, but in my view he combines type 2 and type 3. Since he leaves out type 1, it seems understandable that he was accused of being an atheist by organized religion. Hegel's absolute spirit, on the other hand, seems to combine all three types, and in this respect could be seen as a culmination of philosophical theology, which Nietzsche's nihilism in turn violently attacked.